I think it would take more than "a few more lines of firmware". A NAS has an entire operating system with dozens of subsystems.

Any programmer or system designer would warn of substantially increasing the complexity of a system just to handle one feature. Because then you've got all the attendant integration, testing and debugging issues. Maybe someone who has done such work knows how complex the code needs to be in this case.

There might be hardware changes needed as well, since the port might have to recognise other protocols.

Bear in mind that plugging in any possible hard drive (with any capacity and any disk formatting) is orders of magnitude more complicated than plugging in a fixed-sized memory card that the camera has the rights to format as it wishes.

Fair enough - time to move on. I have changed that sentence in the article to reflect your comments. I do take critique seriously, so thanks for taking the time!

Er, excuse me? Twaddle?

This is not a "precise" article. It is not a thesis, peer-reviewed paper, chapter in a textbook or anything similar. (All of which I know how to write, thanks very much -- and have, when appropriate.) Instead, it's a blog article.

The point of the article was not to define "SLR". Neither did I offer a definition of SLR. So that's a misinterpretation on your part.

Instead I wrote, "The whole point of an SLR is that you can change lenses, so some might question why I'd take a single lens on a trip." The rest of the paragraph contradict this, by giving reasons for why you might indeed use a single lens with an SLR. It should be obvious, then, from context, that the statement is offered as only one way of viewing the situation.

I could have begun the sentence "Some would say that the whole point of an SLR...", but I didn't think it necessary. The meaning is the same either way.

John is correct that this isn't really the "whole point" of an SLR, but in the context of an article about lens selection it is perhaps understandable to emphasise this feature.

In a different context, say, a comparison with p'n's cameras, I might have said that the "whole point" of an SLR is to increase image quality.

In any case, emphasising the "through the lens" viewfinder in the age of Live View is perhaps a bit anachronistic. It's still an SLR if you use the back panel LCD exclusively, isn't it?

I agree that is how SLR is defined. But how people use the term or think about it is a bit different. And I think most associate SLR cameras with switching lenses.

Besides, I do follow up that statement by saying that there's nothing wrong with using just one lens.

My article is obviously pitched at an introductory level. Getting into rangefinders would just throw people.

I think that's a great choice! It's the option I call the "Thrifty 35" in the article I just referenced. To me it's the best single prime solution to the problem.

A shame I just traded mine away.

But I did want that DA12-24.

I've been working for a bit on a series of blog articles, the most recent of which discusses which lenses to take on holidays. Maybe it'll be of help to those trying to make a decision. Goodness knows it's hard enough!

I have found the K20D is much better than the K100DS for dust. I guess the weather sealing really does something, even though it shouldn't make a difference when changing lenses. All I know is, I've needed to clean the sensor only once in six months. I too leave the cleaning option on, so the sensor gets a shake every time I start up the beast.

That is the correct answer.

Just get the basic one unless you see the need to spend more. Sorry, I don't know where. Got mine free with a magazine subscription.

BJP is one of the only mags worth reading. It would be handier as a monthly, though.

They liked the K20D as well, favourably comparing the IQ to the top Sony.