<<Well, what shall we believe? Is the IS series a Maitani design, or isn't
it?
Per Nordenberg>>
I haven't contributed many ramblings lately so please indulge me.
You should believe Olympus.
I should have said it is not an OM system design.
The only thing I contend is that the OM system is just that, OM.
Other Olympus cameras etc. should not be compared
to OM's due to their non system and non Pro design.
I know, some pros use the IS series, sometimes. I refer to durability.
The IS as the point and shooters are completely different
types of cameras and supposedly represent the new improved
way to photograph.
I disagree and I would think that many here do also.
Let me go on to say that the reason I ocasionally look to other
systems as a replacement for my OM system is the age of my equipment
and the expense of replacing it with new OM 3 and 4 bodies and a few nice
new MC lenses. I always change my mind and keep my OM 1 and 2.
I do worry about the lenses having cleaning scratches and have had
fungus problems.
The other thing was my aging eyesight. I thought maybe autofocus
would be the answer. It's not. Focus hunting and slow lenses are a pain.
Zooms without depth of field markings are a drawback also.
My ideal lens would be a "real Zuiko" 28-105mm 2.8 that is light compact
and durable. (and not too expensive) Oh yeah, it should have a non rotating
front element.
Charlie L.
< 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 >
|