P3D Re: Why different?

["John Goodman" <jgood@xxxxxxxx>]

Forgive me for not letting this thread die a natural death...

> Hey, I understand your point... You love the looks and feel of your
> many stereo cameras.  You fall in love with them.

Yes, I'm sometimes smitten, because they are tools of the 
hand, windows into worlds, and their beauty appears much 
more than skin deep. With the Iloca Rapid, a new 
experience for me, a myriad of details point to the time and 
effort dedicated people spent designing and crafting it. The 
choices made were anything but simple, and the outcome 
has a unified elegance. OTOH, I'm not in love with the TDC 
Vivid's clear plastic focus dial and the twin red depth of 
field indicators that move, but I'm in awe of the pains that 
were taken to produce them.

> I am more interested on how the pictures that come out of the camera
> look.  Beauty means nothing for a camera to me.  And in my hands it
> will not remain beautiful for long... It will soon look pretty ugly
> from the signs of use and abuse... I think the efforts to keep a
> camera looking beautiful are getting in the way of using it.

Certainly the results are paramount, and if the Iloca's 
Cassarits are soft, my enthusiasm will be stilled. And 
superficial appearance is of little importance when 
compared to the mechanics, how the camera performs, 
this is a given (however enjoyable a fresh, unblemished 
machine may be to some). But "abuse" to me implies 
action that causes damage, and I can't imagine your going 
out of your way to hurt your cameras. No kid gloves 
treatment, no inhibitions about using them to the full, risks 
be damned, this I can understand. Scars of use, like lines 
on a face, have a history to tell.

JG