I too appreciate thumb and index finger controls. I've never even seen
an E-3 other than in pictures but the Minolta A1 has a similar layout
and I liked that much more than the big jog wheel which is prone to
accidental change unless you set the power switch in the correct
position to prevent it... something I almost always forget to do.
But in any case I wouldn't trade my big sensor for those ergonomic dials.
Chuck Norcutt
Joel Wilcox wrote:
> Chris,
> I think I spoke to the subjective assessment before your reply to
> Chuck came through. I would add that I didn't notice any particular
> difficulty in handling the 5D MkII, but I am not especially fussy
> about that kind of thing. It felt "weird" to handle the MkII but I
> don't doubt I could get used to it. In my opinion, the layout of
> controls on the E-3 is "better." I think the big jog dial on the
> Canaan is clumsy and old-fashioned and much prefer the dials that
> allow quick action via both thumb and index finger on the E-3. But
> Canaan users, I gather, appreciate the fact that controls don't
> substantially change between models.
>
> I might add -- and have no idea how you feel about it -- that I am
> always delighted to handle the E-3. I seems to me to have the
> ergonomics of the E-1 but with improvement/advancement, despite the
> increase in weight. My only snag so far has been that the sensor for
> the remote (RM-1) is not as easy to trigger as on the E-1 or E-330.
>
> Joel W.
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks, Chuck, but I suppose that I was looking for a subjective
>> assessment of the feel between the 2 rather than an objective summary
>> of their dimensions.
>>
>> There again, I have never seen a 5D, let alone handled one. I don't
>> suppose that I have missed much by that omission ... :-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 2 Jan 2009, at 14:08, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>
>>> 5D Mark II $2700 ($2000 for 5D)
>>> Dimensions 152 x 114 x 75 mm (6.0 x 4.5 x 2.9 in)
>>> Weight (no battery) 810 g (29oz)
>>>
>>> Olympus E3 $1429
>>> Dimensions 142 x 116 x 75 mm (5.6 x 4.6 x 2.9 in)
>>> Weight (no battery) 800 g (28oz)
>>>
>>> There's very little difference in size and weight. It's interesting
>>> to
>>> note that the difference in width (10mm) is less than the difference
>>> in
>>> sensor width (18.7mm). Maybe the E3 needs that for the anti-shake.
>>>
>>> So, not much difference in the bodies but what happens when you add an
>>> equivalent pair of high end constant aperture lenses? One weighs
>>> more,
>>> the other weighs less. The E3 body costs much less but the lenses
>>> cost
>>> much more. But the Zuikos are a stop faster although not so wide on
>>> the
>>> wide end.
>>>
>>> Canon 24-70/2.8L 4.9" (124mm) x 3.3" (83mm) - 34oz (950g) $1039
>>> Canon 70-200/2.8L* 7.7" (196mm) x 3.4" (86mm) - 51oz (1458) $1488
>>>
>>> Zuiko 14-35/2.0 4.8" (123mm) x 3.4" (86mm) - 32oz (915g)
>>> $1852
>>> Zuiko 35-100/2.0* 8.4" (214mm) x 3.8" (97mm) - 58oz (1650g) $1950
>>>
>>> *without Tripod Adapter
>>>
>>> Total weight and cost for body and two lenses
>>> 5D Mark II 3218g (114oz) $5227 ($4527 for 5D)
>>> E3 - 3365g (119oz) $5231
>>>
>>> So, the E3 and a pair of fast lenses weighs more and costs more than
>>> the
>>> 5D Mark II and its pair of 1 stop slower lenses. And quite a bit more
>>> than a 5D and the same lenses. When I bought OM in the '70s it was
>>> because it was smaller, lighter and cheaper. It seems that Olympus has
>>> lost its way on small, light and cheap.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a better comparison would be with the 12-60/2.8-4 and
>>> 50-200/2.8-3.5 but there the Zuikos have lost their speed advantage
>>> and
>>> are no longer constant aperture.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|