Winsor Crosby wrote:
>Even though my personal preference is for another camera, I agree
>with you. It seems that extreme exaggeration is the order of the day.
>If Canon lenses and metering were so awful they would not dominate in
>the pro ranks. Canon just sold its 30 millionth EF lens which is some
>kind of testimonial too. Every camera has something it does a little
>better or worse than the competition, or perhaps just make design and
>priority decisions based on what is needed that conflicts with what
>some "experts" think. For instance Nikon does not really think you
>need more than 4 MP for a newspaper photo or a double page spread in
>Sports Illustrated, Canon does not think that the little bit of CA in
>their wide angles is not worth redesigning them when it is easily
>corrected with software, and Olympus uses a size of sensor that is
>noisier than either by an inconsequential amount. I think they are
>all correct. All these "defects" are valid engineering/cost decisions
>and are all but invisible for their intended use if used
>intelligently. For the final product it does not really matter a
>great deal whose camera you use, well except maybe for one of those
>discontinued Kodak DSLRs. I thnk that what matters is how the
>photographer and the camera meld and become one in the photo making
>process.
>
>
Amen, brother.
>........ People often repeat what they hear without opening their eyes.
>
>
And again!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|