Winsor Crosby wrote:
>Well, they manage to make a Stylus zoom with 24x36mm film coverage that
>is about a quarter the size.
>
Well.... Not really comparable. More like 30-40% the size. And, the
Stylus zooms are lower range and slooooower. 100 mm f11 won't please
C.H. for DOF, not even me! :-)
Camera Zoom ZR Zm Speed Vol. V%/880 wt. Wt%/8080
______________________________________________________________________
8080 28-140 5.0x f2.4 - f3.5 63.1 660
Stylus Wide 100 28-100 3.6x f4.6 - f11 18.8 30% 220 33%
Stylus 170 QD 38-170 4.5x f4.8 - f13 25.0 40% 275 42%
>I am just impressed that the Coolpix 8700
>was about a third smaller with a bigger range on the long side and an
>8400 smaller with wider angle. I don't think the difference between
>F2.4 or 2.6 is worth worrying about. And Nikon is not especially
>capable with miniature cameras.
>
Neither is the current Oly.
> The C-8080 is one of the largest of the
>8MP cameras, not the smallest like they used to be. I think if they put
>their minds to it they could do it. After all, their OM lenses were
>smaller than the competition with the same coverage.
>
Those designers are long gone, along with their mind set. If they did,
the E-1 and its lenses would be smaller and lighter. We OMers are living
in the past, my friend. Those original OM lenses are amazing. The later,
faster ones are still small for their speed, but don't have the same
sense of compact magic. The 200/4 is a nice, light tele, but the f5 is
amazingly smaller and lighter. The same for many others.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|