On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 10:11 AM, Fred wrote: > >> Heh. I'm serious, though. Put a Pentax 67 next to an F5. Compare >> physical size. Compare weight. Hell, my old Mamiya C330 twin lens >> weighed more than my 67 and was significantly more awkward to >> hand-hold. > > Why an F5? Why not an LX, say, or an MX?
The F5 is an acceptable weight and size for photojournalists, people who run around with their cameras all day long. Therefore, if the 67 is of similar size and weight, does that not make it also acceptably light and small for carrying around all day? I've picked the F5 because 1) it is nearly the same size and weight as the 67 and 2) it is popular. >> The Pentax 67 is only big or heavy when compared to the smallest and >> lightest of 35mm cameras. > > Well, have you forgotten JCO's "Pentax Family" photo > (http://www.gate.net/~hifisapi/pentaxfamily.jpg), where the > Spotmatic is dwarfed by the 6x7 (and the Spotmatic is not one of the > "smallest and lightest of 35mm cameras"), just as the 110 is dwarfed > by the Spotmatic? Okay, here's what I am trying to say: the 67 has a reputation for being overly heavy and not hand-holdable. If you consider the Spotmatic not hand-holdable, gigantic and overly heavy because of the existence of the 110, then your argument makes sense. However, just because there is a camera out there that is smaller (and that takes a smaller film format), that does not make a camera bigger than it gigantic, overly heavy and impossible to hand-hold. That is what I am trying to say. I am not trying to say that the Pentax 67 is smaller or lighter than the Auto 110. I am trying to make the point that it is a portable, convenient size. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
