:> I'll be copying Greg's example for at least a month: no heavy tripod :> or lenses. Now it's whether to use the time to play with some photo :> software or to have another bash at table top photography ... :> :> There's always a positive angle, and then you die :o) :> :> Bob Since my second heart attack and the increasing onset of angina... etc etc, I've taken to use a pocket digital compact (a Fuji F610). It serves me well for my street photography and fits into my shirt breast pocket. It is a bit limited but really there is not much that I want to do that is outside those limits. Some photographers use specialist lenses all the time, like the macro and close-up of the insect specialist, or the long telephoto of the sports specialist. The ultra-wide would sometimes be useful for street and internal photography, but for everything else a "standard" zoom lens is all I need. And is there any reason for a digital camera to look like the old 35mm format camera? Like most innovations the new is given respectability by making it look like an older popular type. These "phallic" cameras are really to give a "flashy" appearance rather than for function. I suppose a lens does have to have some length and the eye has to see the frame somehow, but do we have to hold it at eye height, a special spectacle connected by a blue tooth link to the hand held camera might be easier and having the IDC mounted on a "gun" handle would make it easier to aim and shoot with a finger operated trigger. Failing the blue tooth radio link and eye viewer then an adjustable screen mounted at the rear of the IDC would be convenient too. Just a thought, how about some speculative designs by David...? Chris.
