> But it's "only" 1,800 grams. That's not much more than a fool-frame DSLR body
> alone.
Hmm. That's about twice as heavy as the 50-200 SWD. I wouldn't want to
go hiking with it as a matter of course, but I certainly could make
use of the lens once in a blue moon to photograph blue moons.
Actually, for photographing airplanes here in Alaska, this could be a
handy lens. Alas, I'd need to actually make money with it and that
seems like work.
Whatever I suggest should be acknowledged as being polar opposite of
the proper thing to do. In fact, let me be the poster-child of "don't
do this".
I've looked at Canon's latest/greatest RF mount cameras. Honestly, if
I was going completely "green field" into a new system, I'd be tempted
to go there. For Alaska photography, I still think Canon's colors are
off, but now not quite so offensively so. The problem I have with
Canon is that it's as desirable to use as a Toyota Camry. Nothing
exciting. Absolutely nothing inventive and unique. It's just a
completely uninspiring blob-o-camera. For me, this is critical because
I get inspiration from my tools.
The best overall system at this point-in-time is still the Sony
full-frames. In spite of a few significant usability issues, this
camera mount has the impressive third-party support I've seen and the
choices in lenses from so many brands and generations is
mind-boggling. I just wish it had Olympus "color science."
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|