Kit lenses used to be pretty dreadful, especially when Canikon had to compete
with Sigma, etc., to put a cheap lens on the camera. Or local Pentax agent is
also the Sigma agent so the low end of the market was flooded with Pentax Sigma
combo kits where the lens was valued at less than $100.
However, many kit lenses these days give pretty good results. Where they tend
to lack is in mechanical quality and robustness.
What has steamed me up lately is pointless pennypinching. The kits that show up
with no rear proper rear lens cap, just a cheap push-on cover. How much would
that cost them? The 14-42mm in the E-PL3 kit had one which is almost as heavy
as a proper rear cap. Why? And no hood? Olympus always used to supply a hood. I
just got my new 45,, f1.8 D.Zuiko and guess what - no hood. I can get one off
ebay for a mere $45-70 though! It's a bit of plastic! How little extra would it
cost Oly to throw it in?
I think I'm a bit cross about that.
Oh, and most innovative camera manufacturer? Probably VEB Dresden. :-)
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 24/10/2011, at 7:56 AM, John Hudson wrote:
> The pixel count might be impressive at upwards of 20mp but the brief web
> browsing I have done shows that the zoom lenses add only two or three
> hundred dollars to the cost of the body. How much optical quality does one
> get for a couple of hundred dollars? I suspect not very much at all.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|