On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Paul Stenquist > <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Leicas are great for a certain type of use, but they lack the flexibility of >> a DSLR, in that they can't be used effectively with lenses longer than >> 135mm. While I enjoy my Barnack Leica, the lack of long lens support makes >> any Leica a non-starter for me and many other photographers. In regard to >> optional features on cameras, it doesn't bother me that they exist as long >> as they don't get in the way. And on the K-5, they don't. I use it the same >> way I would use a digital Leica. > > I wasn't arguing that a RF can replace an SLR. I don't know how that > becomes a topic to debate.
It's not a debate. But since you had digressed from the topic to make some interesting points, among them that a Leica is an "excellent tool, " I merely wanted to point out that a Leica is also a limited tool. Just a point of discussion. > I used RF cameras alongside SLRs for many > many years ... I'm very aware of how much more versatile an SLR is and > didn't promote that Pentax should make a rangefinder camera. > > What I liked about the Leica is that it is a well-made, excellent tool > with no chaff in the way of its intended purpose. It is a deliberative > camera with little on it that isn't directly and understandably > useful. My experience from teaching workshops and doing 1:1 training > with clients is that most of the so-called "convenience" features > cause a great deal of consternation and many errors. Cameras which > have a simpler design ethos minimize this sort of confusion and reduce > the decision making process. > > And I'm not against complexity when it is useful and properly > designed. My E-5 is a professional grade camera with a great deal of > features and sophistication, and it is extremely customizable for many > different kinds of use. I don't use all the features, they're not all > needed for my photography, but I appreciate their being there for when > they might be very useful. And I apply customizations when they make > sense for the work I'm doing. > > The question was 'Where should Pentax go with its SLR development?' My > response is that I don't know, the current crop of cameras is very > sophisticated and capable. How much more capable is needed or even > desirable on the basls of the "more more more" philosophy of current > marketing spin is a question mark to me, although more build quality, > more durability, more reliability would always be a big plus. > > What I really debate is whether the SLR camera has much more real > development life left in it ... The old flipping mirror business gets > in the way of so many other things (lens design, mechanical issues, > auto-focusing issues, video capture, etc) that I think its days are > limited. > -- > Godfrey > godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
