I guess I've decided it's more like an article of faith. I can't really
see how the hypothesis could be proved, the more I think about it.
Joel W.
At 03:10 PM 5/27/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>What would the difference be? It seems to me that unless he provides
>concrete reasons for that it just sounds like an assertion or an
>article of faith. Then it is just like the kid's argument. "It is
>too. Is not." What would there be in a body that is different between
>one that takes film lenses and one that does not? I am not aware of
>anything. I thing it is the design of the wide angle lenses that is
>significant, not the bodies.
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California, USA
>
>On May 27, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> > I think he is saying that a digital SLR that is designed to
> > accommodate
> > film lenses is different from one designed only to use lenses made for
> > sensor capture, and he thinks the latter might be better.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|