Hi,
> If you're thinking Ricoh didn't I read about intolerably long RAW save
> times? Check the reviews...
> Jez in Leefdaal
Hey Jez, long time no see :)
I've read about that. With a very fast memory card and a firmware
upgrade, it's limited to "only" 8s, I read. But the GR-D II has this
down to 3,5s and it has an extra buffer that allows you to take a
second shot while the first one is being saved to the card, so that
solves this problem. I've been thinking about this and it's the main
reason why I would go for version II.
Joel wrote:
> The 90/2 is an excellent choice. Hang on to it as it carries over to
> digital most of the qualities for which it is valued for film, and you
> won't encounter those qualities among the DZs at present.
The 90/f2 will never go. It's like a bar of gold with my name stamped
into it. It's one of the lenses that stimulated me to explore more of
photography and for that feat by itself, it deserves to stay with me
as long as it lasts :)
> Ag has gotten some wonderful results with the 100/2.8 and
> 200/4. The 200/4 arguably performs better on a digital body than on
> an OM body. The 200/4 is the only film lens I have bought since I got
> the E-1. I sold my original one, saw what Ag Schnozz was able to do
> with it on an E-1, and snapped up another when I got a chance.
That's interesting, I'm upping my low price on it. I haven't found
any 200/f4 lenses deals on recent eBay history, so I don't have a
clue. But still, for me, a 400mm exists only for curiosity: practical
value is very limited. Give me 21-100mm and that's sufficient. (I'm
neither a bird observer nor a sports photographer.)
For sale list in the next post.
Peter.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|