Yup, I realize that I'm skewed. E-1/E-3 (or whatever), I still think that if
the zoom is only a tool for wedding gigs, then you'd pay for the greater
upfront investment in no time. Yes, the software and other expense is greater,
but the workflow is different. This and most type of portraiture are the two
areas where I think digital makes a lot of sense. But then, I'm not putting my
money where my mouth is, am I? :-(
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/6/2004 at 2:27 AM Gordon Ross wrote:
>Hi Earl:
>
>Well there is a logic in what you espouse (albeit laced with some
>rationalization), but the $ are skewed- a used zoom $200 to $400 vs E1 and
>zoom- $2500.00 not to mention software, cards etc.
>
>I am attracted to the E1 but my every instinct is to wait just a bit
>longer.
>Digital cameras are not in the Pentium 4 phase yet (I mean that computers
>have reached a stasis of low price and no real 'quantum leaps' of change
>at
>the moment) prices will go lower and there is more technology to come = so
>waiting means more camera and less money, hardly the time to get impatient.
>
>Gord
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:32 AM
>Subject: [OM] Re: Zoom
>
>
>>
>> I believe Gord's original request for info and opinions was in the
>context
>> of wedding photography. If this is the prime consideration, then I
>offer
>> my entirely uneducated, unsubtantiated but otherwise highly significant
>> opinion...
>>
>> I would go with a faster zoom on an E-1. I know this is a whole
>different
>> equation than Gord's not-insignificant investment in OM, but if wedding
>> shooting becomes more than a very sporadic activity, then why not? The
>> quality of E-1 images seems very well suited to weddings, and the only
>> real drawback seems to be low-light autofocus. Purchasing an "old
>> technology" zoom in the FL range mentioned, just for wedding work will
>> either be a compromise vis-a-vis speed/low light focusing, or will be
>very
>> expensive. If such a lens would not get much use in non-wedding work,
>> then perhaps exploring the E-1 would make sense. And all the other
>> non-E-1 glass you have could be used on the E-1 via the adapter.
>>
>> Earl
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|