Earl Dunbar wrote:
>But in my hands, it was the 104 & 81 dimensions of the E-1, compared to
>the E-300, that made a huge difference.
>
Exactly. People and their toys aren't linear. what's big to one isn't to
another, the same with weight. The E-1 SEEMS to be much bigger and
heavier to me than the E-300 when I hold them in my hands.
I have both the Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 lenses. My mind
wants to use the Tamron, because the tests say it's a little better
optically. They are almost the same size, if you don't count the goofy
tripod mount on the Tamron, but the Tokina is much lighter. Somehow, the
Tokina is within whatever size/weight limit my body has, and I don't
mind carrying it around. When I carry the Tamron around on a body, I'm
thinking "This damn thing better make some amazing shots, or it's back
on the shelf, grumble, grumble." It's not lenear, not rational, but it's me.
Same thing with small cameras. I looked at all the small rangefinders
Oly and others came out with years ago, and which many of you love, and
rejected one after another until the XA came along. I knew what minimum
features I needed and I knew just how small a camera would have to be
for me to carry it around when not out shooting pictures. I was just
looking closely at the C-7000, nice camrea, pretty small for what it
does. When I actually looked closely at size, I realized it would just
be another shelf sitter. I might just as well carry the DSLR.
That's just me, and I hope that's all my original comments were taken as.
And yes, I can carry around an OM-4 with big zoom and winder, when the
mood strikes me, I don't know why. Maybe the E-3 will be the same form
factor as the E-1, but the performance will win me over.
I ain't always a logical Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|