Mike wrote:
> You have addressed the weight issue Moose, which is pretty easy to
> quantify. It's the _size_ of the current crop of WonderBricks that puts
> me off as well as the weight
Well, they certainly are bigger, but that is the lesser of the two
issues for me. They could without doubt be smaller than they are, but
probably not as small as an OM without some compromise is function. For
example, the big color LCD on the back of the 5D is really useful, but
wouldn't even fit on the back of an OM body. The information LCD might
make it onto the top. But what about all the buttons and wheels? One of
the regular complaints about digicams is that too many things require
going into the menus. Going to a really small body would force either
tiny buttons, impractical for big hands, gloves, etc. or fewer buttons
and poorer functionality.
> since I tend to pack the smaller lenses as consistant with the original OM
> philosphy.
For a home based wander, I like an OM-1 with the smaller primes. Further
away, I've preferred the wide range zooms. The combo I compared, 5D with
28-300 vs. OM-4 with 28-210 and Winder are of roughly comparable bulk,
although different shapes. I didn't use winders for most of my OM years,
but the last few years, I've liked them for the grip and because I lose
less shots to forgetting to wind on.
> They still have a ways to go to approach the 'hand' of an OM4t IMHO
>
Certainly. I was just fondling an OM-4 with 50/3.5. Really a wonderful
camera! And so simple to operate. But there are things it won't do that
I want to do and that a DSLR will do. Sigh....
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|