> Also....$8,000 for a 300/2.8?!?!? I don't think so...you can get a
> Canon 300/2.8 with IS for $3500 new and less than that used.
But this is effectively a _600_/2.8, what with the 2x multiplication,
remember -- and that's a whole other kettle of fish. It's not too small --
129mm/281mm/3300g, but looking at Can*n/Nik*n equivalents, there's a Can*n
600/4 for $7200 or Nik*n 600/4 for 7400. Those do have IS, to be fair, but
you also gain a lot of size and weight along with the loss of speed.
That said, it's always going to be difficult to do the comparison, because
of crop factors etc -- from one point of view, it's a 300/2.8 lens, there's
a 300/2.8-s worth of glass in there, so it's overpriced (and heavier).
From another point of view, if I want to take a full-frame picture of
something that's X distance away with Y amount of light at Z shutter speed,
the 35mm equivalent is a 600/2.8. Is the full-frame image equivalent? That's
a hard call.
Personally, I think it has a decent chance -- there's obviously been an
awful lot of time put into adding polish to the new camera, the direct-to-PC
link (going both ways, even) is neat, splashproof never hurts, the initial
reviews suggest that the ergonomics are good.
While it doesn't have as much theoretical resolution as film does, maybe
that doesn't matter -- it's arguably not _meant_ to replace 35mm film
cameras, after all, it's presumably meant for people who do a lot of work
with digital already. At that point, you can compare apples to apples, and
maybe 5MP is less than 6MP, but without doing a comparison of the two to see
how good the image quality is, who knows.
-- dan
< 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 >
|