> I finally decided that I like the size and unobtrusiveness
> of the the Olympus, and that, as the camera is to *supplement*
> my Canon EOS, Olympus OM1 (and little-used OMPC) and Olympus
> 35RC (Lovely camera! Buy one! Cheap as chips!), the extra
> megapixel and the fact that if I'm willing to carry around
> a big flash than I'm willing to carry around film and
> 50E in those circumstances (and the C-5050 has a built-in
> for "fill" as well), well....you can see where this is
> heading.
>
> I've decided pretty much to go with the C-5050 (are you
> there Wayne Culberson? It's probably not "perfect", but for
> me, having looked, it seems close enough). Having finally held
> that compact little body in my hands, and felt the "glove"
> effect (one I've only previously got from the 35RC), the
> heart may be overriding the mind in some areas.
> Marc
> Sydney, Oz
Marc
I'm still not sure which way I'll go, as I'm having trouble justifying the
extra dollars for the Oly C-5050 over the C-4000. I'm not sure what that
extra megapixel will do for me for what I'll be mostly using it for, and
some of the other extras don't mean a lot to me right now. But since
digital is all new to me, go with your heart, not what I think.
The lens difference is sort of a toss up. The C-5050 has a 35-105mm
equivalent, starts at 1.8, but is at 2.6 when zoomed (and to f/10). The
C-4000 has a 32-96mm equivalent, and is constant 2.8 throughout (and to
f/11). I think I'd almost prefer the slightly wider of the C-4000, and the
slightly faster lens on the C5050 is only at the wider settings.
(Uhhhh, yes, don't sell your 35RC just yet.)
Wayne
< 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 >
|