Mike wrote:
>>
>> Size/weight is a matter of utter irrelevance.
>>
> WTF Of course it is relevant! Maybe not to a pro in the studio but at
> least to many people it is very important. Wasn't that the promised
> benefit of going with a smaller sensor? And so now we have a wonderbrick
> as big as the competition, arguably a smaller feature set and which
> costs more.
*trying not to poke at hornets' nests*
I often get the feeling these days (in many arenas, not just matters
photographic) that any area in which one falls short is deemed
"irrelevant".
Of course, as soon as that "irrelevant" element is improved --
either to parity or to a slight level beyond the competition -- it
then becomes _very_ relevant. :-p You see it in computer CPU
ratings, in political poll results, and in discussions of p*nis
size. It's just words -- just the way people talk.
Steve
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|