Rangefinderforum.com - View Single Post

matthewm · 06-23-2011

Ugly little thing, isn't it? Almost cute...
I just can't see the benefit of such a tiny camera when you could get something just slightly larger and have far better image quality (m4/3, NEX, etc.). And as someone else pointed out, there's always the option of the LX-5, DLUX-5.

Judging from the photo of the person holding the camera, it looks incredibly uncomfortable and cramped. Why wouldn't Pentax create something with the sensor from their K-X that is comparable in size to the NEX or GF series?

This is definitely interesting, but I'm guessing it will flop...

06-23-2011	#15
matthewm Registered User matthewm is offline Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Carolina Posts: 325	Ugly little thing, isn't it? Almost cute... I just can't see the benefit of such a tiny camera when you could get something just slightly larger and have far better image quality (m4/3, NEX, etc.). And as someone else pointed out, there's always the option of the LX-5, DLUX-5. Judging from the photo of the person holding the camera, it looks incredibly uncomfortable and cramped. Why wouldn't Pentax create something with the sensor from their K-X that is comparable in size to the NEX or GF series? This is definitely interesting, but I'm guessing it will flop... __________________ Ultimately, Photography is subversive, not when it frightens, repels, or even stigmatizes, but when it is pensive, when it thinks. --from Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes --- Websites: Flickr \| Blog Cameras: Canon 5D2/5Dc \| Ricoh GXR