LOL, a Nikon F with plain prism *is* small. It's not much more bulky
than a Leica M3 or an OM-1 in practical terms. All three can be carried
all day by one's side with no problems - faithful, mechanical companions
that fit in the hand, can be operated by feel more or less (OM-1 is the
best in that regard), and are quick and unobtrusive to use.
Then you get "large" SLR bodies, and these include an Olympus E-5, a
Canon 40/50/60/7d, a Nikon D200/300, etc. Big blobby things with big
blobby lenses.
Then the "integrated motor grip" beasts - Canon 1D series, Nikon F5,
Nikon D3/4, etc.
A Nikon F with a 50mm f/2.0 is every bit as discreet as a Leica or an
Olympus with a 50mm, the differences are minor. Especially when it comes
to "equivalency" - for example, a Nikon F with a Pancake 45mm f/2.8
render "equivalent" (FOV, DOF) to an E-5 with a Panasonic Leica 25/1.4,
and the Nikon if almost pocketable by comparison, it's so small.
Don't make me take comparison shots to prove it to you :-)
Dawid
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 13:54 +0100, Piers Hemy wrote:
> I can't believe nobody has taken Dawid to task on the little throwaway
> comment that a Nikon F is a small 35mm camera! Granted, no Photomic prism,
> but still!
>
> But I have to agree that m4/3 (and OM-D especially) seems to have delivered
> on the original promise.
>
> And, Nathan, yours was E-420:
> http://www.greatpix.eu/gallery/4253606_netUM#!i=316912721&k=TzHpA&lb=1&s=A
>
> Piers
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|