In the old days we appreciated the small OM system and Olympus claimed the
4/3 is smaller, lighter and cheaper so we have to compromise for a small
sensor and higher noise.... but nothing came true. Then now we are happy
with the big lenses and bodies ?????
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Sepke"
> Ken has a very good point here. In the E System the 35-100mm and the E-3
> are
> made for each other, the balance is great. I doubt I could use that lens
> effectively on a smaller body (my kit doesn't include anything between the
> 420 and the 3). It's d**n heavy combo and quite a workout when toted
> around
> all day.
>
> Dan S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Norton
> Subject: Re: [OM] Musings from the dark side - i.e. life with 5D2
>
> Yes, but you need a serious sized camera to house all the electronics,
> batteries, screens, AF sensor modules and anti-shake mechanisms. Yes,
> Olympus could make it smaller (see the E-410 for example), but with a big
> lens you can't hold the thing. Size and mass is actually an important part
> of a professional camera.
> <snip>
> All those things dictate a certain size and mass to accomplish. I look at
> what Leica has accomplished with the M9 and I'm quite impressed.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|