> Actually, my opinion is extremely biased. It is biased by my experience,
> style of photography, subject matter and the fact I'm an Olympus
> user--hence the reason why I'm doing this series of reports.
And thank you. Something that recurs in your postings
about the cameras you are looking at is their much larger size
and weight.
As I understand it, you ruled out Pentax and Minolta because of
the lack of availablity of stuff for hire. Where I live, it's
mostly Nikon for hire with a smattering of Canon. On the one hand,
if your wedding assignments need the same old range of lenses, it
might be better to go for a cheaper brand and carry extra inventory.
On the other, if the bride's family want a fisheye shot of the
inside of the church, you'd better have it or be able to hire it.
The weight of the cameras you mention is up there with medium
format. Wouldn't that be better for weddings? You're not
shooting a Tasmanian tiger at 200 meters and don't need "big glass".
BTW, I've never really understood the professional's fetish for big
heavy gear. Most of us here know cameras can be small, light
*and* robust. And even if a photographer can himself carry the
gear, he might one day want to hire a female assistant who can't.
Of course, there's nothing an individual photographer can do
about this - it's up to the camera companies. Who will, in turn,
say they are catering to the market...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|