> Seems like a lot of money for camera with a small, dim viewfinder,
That's one of the but no cigar things. I did handle an E500, and although I
didn't really like the VF, it wasn't as bad as expected.
>3 point autofocus,
Don't know about that.
1 LCD
Doesn't bother me, don't llike the damn things anyway.
and a small buffer that only allows four raw
> shots at a leisurely pace.
Not a problem for me.
A Nikon D50 improves on it in several
> areas and is only $500 and change. For $2000 you should be getting a
> lot more camera. You can get a Nikon D200 with kit lens for the same
> price or a Canon D30 for less. Either is a superb camera with better
> viewfinders, speed, focusing, and ergonomics. Sorry, but putting
> everything into just one LCD is a pain in my opinion. The Nikon will
> also improve on the resolution and the Canon on the noise. But your
> mileage may vary. I bought a Contax T3 once. :-)
That was a good choice.
I too am looking at ergonomics, and I am VERY interested in the shutter
speed knob and the zoom and aperture rings.
I need to handle one first. The Nikon and Canon bodies and lenses are a bit
bigger and somewhat heavier that I want. I understand that nothing will be
as good ergonomically as the OM's, and still heavier and larger than my
Hasselblads, but I really am tired of the huge slrs.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|