Christos Stavrou wrote:
> The compact size of E-400 is a big plus for me, which makes it
> attractive -even to think to try digital (mainly for events), but this
> camera doesn't really compare to an OM-4, apart its size, does it?
>
Why not? It looks like a very capable camera, and comparable with the
others in the comparison chart. First report I've seen says AF is still
behind the leaders and we won't know about high iso image quality for a
while, but I think you can be sure it's fine through at least iso 400.
Will it last forever like an OM? No, but nothing digi will, the world
has changed.
> According to the editor of the article there ''Olympus seem to focus
> more on the compact camera user that wants to take the step to a DSLR,
> but is reluctant to miss out on the user convenience of a compact and
> light-weight digital camera''.Is it really so?
>
Pshaw! The guy had to say something about each of a bunch of cameras
largely indistinguishable on specs, so he made up something based on size.
The other big unknown is the new lenses. Oly has so far avoided the
lowest quality entry level lenses purveyed by others in price packages.
Whether they have given in, or perhaps how far they have gone, won't be
known for a bit. And I suppose they will be selling only kits with the
two lenses at first.
If AF and noise are ok, it could be a killer travel camera with the 18-180.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|