With regard to the claim that the 4/3 system will permit smaller cameras and
lenses...
In 1974 I started working for Bendix Field Engineering. I had a Nikon system,
which I liked very much, but I realized it was too much to carry with me when
travelling overseas. So I put together an OM-1 system with a motor drive and a
bunch of lenses. The whole thing fit in a tiny case that would barely have held
a Nikon F and a lens or two. I was -- and remain -- wildly impressed at
Olympus's skill in making high-quality but tiny equipment.
Small size and light weight do not automatically make a camera easy to handle.
But the OM-1 had a fairly good control layout, and my hands wrapped around it
comfortably. Its lower weight also made it easiler to handle with long lenses.
I don't need to tell anyone in this group that the E-500 -- not to mention most
of its lenses! -- is substantially bulkier than an OM-1. But... It feels
comfortable, and the control layout largely makes sense. You could never make a
camera of this sort as small as an OM-1, simply because the LCD and plethora of
controls require additional area to hold them, and the appropriate spacing for
someone with an average hand.
On the other hand, I have no idea why the lenses are so large. Most seem about
50% larger in diameter than they "need" to be. I can only assume Olympus wanted
the body's mount to be large enough to accomodate an OM lens.
Compactness is less important than it was 30+ years ago, because of the
proliferation of zoom lenses. Two or three lenses can cover what used to
require half a dozen.
What's the point of claiming smaller body and lens size when such things are no
longer that important?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|