Hi Jerry: I made it quite clear that I didn't think I was making an "equal" comparison, by stating in my next paragraph that this was an "unfair comparison". Of course it's silly to compare an SLR to a RF unless you assume that some features' advantages, like the SLR TTL viewing, make up for other disadvantages like the low speed and so-so quality of the 2.8/40 mm Pentax SMC-M lens. As an aside, the classical training of many on this list is not completely waisted on me (even though I only attended a "mathematisch- naturwissenschaftliches Gymnasium"). Anyone else noticed Marc's correct plural of the Zeiss Icarex recently: "Icarices". I stand in awe. ;-) Jan ====== On Saturday, April 2, 2005: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote > Jan, > When you compare, you MUST use equality. You are comparing a 40mm > f2,8 lens with a 50mm f2? My Logics professor would call that > 'contrasting' > not 'comparing'. The English language is pretty specific in those > terms. I > will not consider your contention as it is based on a false premise. > You could say that a Nikon F with 50mm f1.4 is smaller than a Leica M > with a 135mm f2.8. It would, but it is BS. > Jerry > Jan Decher wrote: >> Austin: >> ME/MX thickness is of course slightly in the area of the mirror box. >> But >> with the 2.8/40 pancake it's definitely less than Leica M with rigid >> 2/50 >> Summicron. >> This unfair comparison aside, I think Leica built it's "pocketable" >> reputation with the earlier Screwmount Leicas.