I don't think that is so much of a factor any more and hasn't been
since the early 1990's. In the 70's there was a lot of heavy metal
around and even consumer grade SLR's were metal bricks. Now there is
a much clearer relationship - light = cheap and heavy =
professional. It's quite clearly defined in the market. The amateur
looking for an SLR likes light. The enthusiast and try-hard wants a
handful. I was bothered by the fact that my 5D didn't seem as robust
as my old 10D, for instance and the D200/300 'feels' good because of
the weight in a compact body. I know it doesn't matter but on a
deeper level, it's reassuring. Even sensible pro's like big kit.
Something like the E-410 and Nikon D40 was produced to 'kill' the EVF
market and succeeded - while a compact Canon S5 superzoom can be
successful, the Fujifilm Sxxxx style is pretty much history I
suspect. And rangefinder styles like the Canon G9 and late lamented
8080 are a real niche market now.
Olympus will be/should be pushing on the NMOS chip quality and robust/
weatherproof - the 4/3 format will be sold on the telecentricity
hook, not size.
The school photog I know who uses E-1's likes them because they are
robust, trouble free (his undertrained assistants don't break them)
and the 5mp is quite enough for 10x8's, given the quality of those
pixels. Size/weight is a matter of utter irrelevance.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 19/10/2007, at 6:46 AM, Rob Harrison wrote:
> Very good points made, in that post.
>
> System compactness and lightness was exactly the reason I traded in my
> Minolta SRT-101 for an OM-1md and Zuiko lenses in 1976.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|