on 4/24/04 9:00 AM, Winsor Crosby at wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Of course that is true. There is a minimum size for all that digital
> stuff, now, but I was not really talking about that. I was talking
> about the 5 pounders with batteries and modest zoom attached. And the
> silly arguments that somehow the weight improves picture taking. Even
> the argument that the weight is needed for reliable shutters and
> mirrors is specious as any of us with our ancient, 16 oz. SLRs can
> attest.
>
> But the D70, 300D, and Pentax are showing that size can go down.
> However, even though the D2H is smaller than the D1H, the deluxe
> cameras will continue to be large mostly because of the customer's
> expectation and size reduction not being considered to be a feature.
> That was the beauty of the OM. Just as capable, but small and light.
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
There seems to be a dichotomy in camera design... the high-end complex
full-auto-bricks are large, weighty, and expensive. Then there are the
'consumer grade' all-plastic wunderbricks, which to my mind are too light
and delicate. I just picked up a (non-working) Minolta XTsi and its all
plastic, has lots of auto features (if I can fix it...) and only weighs
about 3/4lb without the lens. Similar cameras are available from all the
major manufacturers, but they look suspiciously similar in control layout
and overall form factor... I think they are all made by Cosina or some
nameless Chinese factory.
The OM-1 was a breakthrough for volume and weight reduction when it came
out, but at no compromise to construction quality and durability. I don't
feel the same confidence in the design and construction of this Minolta, but
for $30 with lens it was worth buying to play with...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|