Khen Lim wrote:
----
>As for the 4:3 advantages of being lighter and compact,
>there are points I like to make here. On paper these advantages
>are obvious but in reality, it does look like they might not have
>delivered as much of these.
-----
Although I understand most physical limitations, I still have a hard
time understanding why the DZuikos are so much larger than the
OM-zuikos, the 35 and 50mm macro's being the exeptions here. In my
physics book a 50mm/2 for 4/3 format could be made smaller than a 50mm/2
for 35mm film format. Could you or anyone else please elaborate on that?
I can understand that the zooms are larger than fixed foacl length
lenses, but they seem quite bulky to me, while the OM lenses really were
small.
Regards,
Wiliam Wagenaar
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|