I'm still stuck in the old OM days. Ignorance is bliss!
--
Russ Butler (NJ USA)
C.H.Ling wrote:
> 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/
|