They should have except it didn't come out that way due to the speed.
Take the ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 which weighs 435g. The nearest equivalent I
can find for Canon full frame is the 28-105/3.5-4.5 which weighs only
372g. It weighs about 15% less but is also 2/3 stop slower. The ZD
14-45/3.5-5.6 might be a better comparison at 285g. But it probably has
a lot more plastic and is slower still at the (shorter) long end. In
any case, I don't think Oly is delivering on a quality, lightweight system.
And what has happened with "telecentricity"? We were told in the
beginning that the large diameter of the 4/3 mount allowed the use of
large diameter rear elements to direct the light rays more perpendicular
to the sensor surface. This was to be especially important for short
focal length lenses. As I was poring over the optical diagrams and
specs for the ZD lenses it suddenly struck me that all the wide angle
zooms use relatively small diameter rear elements. The Zuiko 50 and
90mm macros seem to have much larger rear elements than their ZD cousins.
Chuck Norcutt
Johann Thorsson wrote:
> I can't see why a smaller sensor should make the body much smaller. It
> still requires much the same electronics, hardware and batteries as the
> other brands. My understanding was that the lenses would really be the
> things that they could make smaller due to the crop factor?
>
> J
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|