Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: E1 vs E300

Subject: [OM] Re: E1 vs E300
From: "David Irisarri" <div2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:29:31 +0100
Hi Skip,

What do you mean for PMA f/2,0?

Dave
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Skip Williams" <om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: E1 vs E300


>
> The 7-14 is currently showing a $1,800 selling price.  Yikes!
>
> The 11-22 is a super lens, and one that I've never been sorry that I 
> bought.  The 7-14 is overkill for most of us mortals.  If I want more FOV 
> than a 22mm equiv, I'll put my 15mm lens on my Leica.  For the number of 
> times that I'd really NEED the 7-14, it's much more cost effective.
>
> If you want shallow DOF, buy the 150/2.0, or one of the new PMA, f/2.0 
> zooms that have been rumoured.  But the 50-200/2.8-3.5 is very nice at 
> shallow DOF,  It's like a Zuiko 180/2.8 shot almost wide open, which 
> produces very nice results.
>
> Skip
>
>
> ----- Original Message ---------------
>
> Subject: [OM] Re: E1 vs E300
>   From: Daniel Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx>
>   Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:45:27 -0700
>     To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> Of course I bought the 11-22
>>> immediately to enjoy the fun of super wide.
>>
>>  That's one thing that's keeping me from getting into DSLR just yet -- 
>>Moose "sees in telephoto", whereas I "see in wide-angle", and so I'd be
>>wanting to buy the 11-22 if I bought an E1/E300, but those are pretty
>>expensive. (now, when the 7-14 comes out, that's going to be very 
>>tempting!)
>>
>>> I like DOF control (mostly shallow DOF), less than
>>> 1% of my shots are at F8 or below.
>>
>>  That's another thing -- don't you get also more DOF with smaller
>>(digital) sensors because of the optics of it all?
>>
>>  One thing that I've found with the Coolpix I have is that I get a lot
>>of DOF -- which is handy for macro shots, I've taken way too many of
>>those with my OMs where the DOF is so tiny you can't see anything -- but
>>it's bad for portraits or isolating things against the background, and
>>there's not really the fast lenses for that sort of thing yet. Shutter
>>speed, sure, I like being able to dial ISO up and down if it's dark
>>(because a grainy but sharp shot is better than a smooth but blurred
>>shot, imho), but that's not the only thing that you get with a fast lens.
>>
>>  -- dan
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz