>And thank you. Something that recurs in your postings
>about the cameras you are looking at is their much larger size
>and weight.
Yup.
>The weight of the cameras you mention is up there with medium
>format. Wouldn't that be better for weddings? You're not
>shooting a Tasmanian tiger at 200 meters and don't need "big glass".
You mean that I can't have both MF and 35mm wonderbricks? I was thinking
about that Pentax, but will probably wait and see what Mamiya comes up with
this year. I can almost guarantee that the M645 will go AFbefore the next
Photokina.
>BTW, I've never really understood the professional's fetish for big
>heavy gear. Most of us here know cameras can be small, light
>*and* robust. And even if a photographer can himself carry the
>gear, he might one day want to hire a female assistant who can't.
Small and lightweight is good if you spend your life backpacking or if the
camera is a "tag-along" item. However, if your primary mission is taking
pictures, you can justify the size and weight. Besides, a bit of mass can
be a good thing. How many of us have added motor drives and winders to our
beloved OM's so they are easier to handle? In my comparing the F100 and
F5, I actually pereferred the F5's additional weight.
Ken
Kenneth E. Norton
Image66 Photography
image66@xxxxxxx
(515) 791-2306
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|