Originally posted by pingflood I think this whole discussion is revolving around a strawman -- nobody around here is saying you _can't_ do it, they're just saying that it's not the best tool for it and other cameras might do it better.
something like that, yeah, but in my opinion it's wrong. the camera is not a tool for the job in itself, it's a tool for the job and the photographer. there is a desperate desire these days to rank on a linear scale, and have "objective measurements" of things which are not so trivial to measure. numbers are nice, but it's easy to become unable to see the forest for the trees. one of the most extreme examples that comes to mind from my experience is "measuring quality" in "corporate" environments. they got so used to this stupidity they can't even see how absurd it is anymore, and they love throwing big words around it; the results are mindblowing, in most cases you don't know if to laugh or cry.
this is why i ask "what is it that doesn't work for _you_", i admit there might be things missing, and which could be improved, but if people keep telling "it's slow" "it sucks" "it's jsut not up to the competition", we're not going to get anywhere.