The Caveman wrote: > Strictly from an esthetic POV, do you guys like this ?
(Strictly from an aesthetic POV, I hate the spelling "esthetic". :-P Yeah, I know darn well it's _correct_ (as is my preferred spelling), I just hate it. It looks like it's written by a newspaper editor fretting about this week's ink budget. But that's my problem.) > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04082504casio_p700.asp This is as much a revelation of certain personal biases that go beyond simple aesthetics as it is a judgement of how pleasing it is to look at, but: it looks too "toy-like" for my tastes. (Not that appearence would stop me from using a camera that works for me; having a wonderful machine also be a beautiful machine is a pretty nice bonus, but hey, it's ultimately optional.) It also looks too small for me. (Waiting for the rest of the page to load to see if there are dimensions listed... my poor little 56K modem is busy with three other image-heavy pages right now.) The back looks reasonably; the front looks as though they were going for a certain "pure simplicty and elegance" but couldn't resist adding little touches to make it "less boring" or to make sure they had an _identifiable_ look, and thus missed the pure simplicity by just enough to look wrong. Erase a couple of lines (take off some lettering, make corners into gentle curves, do away with the chrome bulge...) and it would work. Either that or dress it up more so it doesn't look like they were trying for a "clean" look. Ah, there are the dimensions. #blink# Whoah. Yeah, way too small for my hands, but it would fit in my purse (or my sporran when I wear a kilt) nicely. At that size some of my objections are reduced a bit -- the chrome bulge, for example, starts to make more sense. It ain't _ugly_, not by a long shot, but not quite my cuppa either. Strictly from an aesthetic POV. Not even looking at features yet. -- Glenn, can be opinionated on demand
