Originally posted by Pentaxor the ergo and build doesn't look impressive. those two things are also major factors in a camera's appeal. the Sony NEX for example are ugly as hell.
Read a newspaper article yesterday describing the NEX3 and NEX5 as seeming like a cell phone, not a camera (I haven't seen them). The reviewer
loves them, though, says they're just the thing for photogs who want IQ without the size/wt of a DSLR. He hopes the next versions will be camera-like!
It was Don Lindich's nationally syndicated column or maybe his blog, or maybe both. The blog:
http://www.soundadviceblog.com/
BTW, the first camera he recommended in his column yesterday was the K-x! The word that stuck in my mind was
love!
Here's a quote about the NEX's from the blog:
"The dark horse on the horizon? It’s definitely Sony. This week I was introduced to
Sony’s NEX-3 and NEX-5 cameras and I became an NEX-5 owner in very short order, though I have not been much of a Sony fan lately. I was blown away when I saw how tiny the NEX cameras are and believe me, pics on the web do not do them justice. You really need to hold one in your hand to “get it.” I will write more later this week, but for now let me say that the NEX-5 is a technological tour de force that is unmatched in the category, though using it sometimes it feels more like using a cell phone than a fine photographic instrument. I am flabbergasted at what Sony has accomplished with these cameras, despite their quirks and flaws. If they make the next NEX body seem more like a camera and less like a gadget they might well own the CILC category. I am looking forward to telling you more about the NEX-5 later this week."