Originally posted by MMVIII I am working in research too, and false precision (why do you use decimal mm values if your estimations are +- 3mm?) is a clear sign for me as a reviewer that something is fishy... Anyway, it's not a peer review and you are entitled to use any point you want for your arguments, I see that it is just polemics and would have expected more substance, but, sure, it's just a discussion on an internet forum, what should I have expected.
The short of it was that I was tired and copypasted the value I got
. It's an approximation and, when there are people making completely nonsensical claims, I'm not going to bother with any high precision work because they will just move the goalpost (see the going from "but the battery and SD card" to "but the 0.2 inches extra"), because there seem to be three camps:
Camp A believes that Pentax can do no wrong and the fixed screen is therefore the one and only possible option.
Camp B believes that Pentax can do no right and the fixed screen makes the camera unsellable.
Camp C might or might not be bummed out by the screen but in the end it's a design decision motivated by several other design requirements.
Camps A and B, of course, are digging a trench that would make generals in 1915 proud.
I'm firmly in the "no big deal" camp, but if I see people going over the supposed massive thickness imparted by the flippy screen for... I don't even know how many pages, then maybe there should be a reminder that the thickness added by said flippy screen is also not a big deal. Would posting the actual drawings get a different response? Probably not at all. Was there any point in even bothering with an approximation of the KP's thickness? Not at all, but I've already wasted a lot of keystrokes on this futility and there's at least some sense of entertainment.
This thread's been a mess for days and the best thing that can happen to it is a lock and throwing away the key.