Jeff Keller wrote:
> Smaller, cheaper, lighter ... that doesn't come to my mind when the 5D
> is in my hand.
Well.... I did some quick calculations. If you got the E-1 kit, I don't
know what it cost, ad put in the curent retail for the lenses and a
guesstimate body price.
Canon prices are what I paid, the 19-35 and macro were bought used
:
Oly E-1 Canon 5D
------- $ wt -------- $ wt
7-14 1,650 780 Tamron 28-200 370 420
14-54 430 435 Promaster 19-35 105 295
50-200 850 1,070 Canon 50/1.8 + hood 99 132
Tamron 90/2.8 1:1 macro 360 405
Lenses 2,930 2,285 934 1,251
Oly E-1 900 660 Canon 5D 2,600 965
Total $3,830 2,945 $3,534 2,216
lbs 6.5 lbs 4.9
So the E-1 kit covers 35mm eq of 14-400, probably cost more and weighs
6/10 of a pound more. The 5D kit covers 35mm eq of 19-480 at equal or
better effective speeds.* And the 5D kit includes a fast normal lens and
a really first class 1:1 macro lens.
I'll admit the 19-35 is probably the weak link. I bought it for the
300D, and it's quite good on the small sensor, but not first class on
FF. So add $185 and 140g to move up to the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 Di**. I
know the extra 3mm on the short end are probably important to you, but
not to me. I'm not much good with super-super wides. I've never had any
thing wider than the 18/3.5.
On 10/28/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The alternate model that some digital bodies offer is smaller, cheaper,
> lighter lenses for the same or better capture quality in any given light.
>
Leaving aside quibbles over details, all I'm saying is the the net cost
of roughly equivalent kits is about the same and the 5D kit is lighter
and has better macro.
> I've been reluctant to buy any C lenses because of the
> size, weight, and performance compromises.
>
As you can see, I only have one inexpensive Canon lens. When you talk
performance compromises, I assume you are talking super wide. Their
normal and tele lenses, leaving aside the cheapies, range from very good
to superb. I'll have to say, and hope I have given some backup with many
posts, that the Tamron 28-300 is a mighty fine lens too. I'm
contemplating the 70-300 IS DO some day, not in anticipation of much, if
any, additional sharpness, but for the IS.
The alternate kit I'm thinking about is Tam 17-35/2.8-4, C
28-105/3.5-4.5 and C 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS DO. With the macro, that ups the
weight to equal your kit, but the price to $4,500. Of course, ti also
adds speed and IS.
> With the limited pixel count of the E-System it is hard to say if the
> D.Zuikos are better than the C*non L lenses,
In many cases, you don't have to go L unless you have special
requirements for ruggedness and sealing. C's upper level non-L lenses
are in many cases the same or better in optical performance as the Ls.
There are also some excellent third party lenses available.
Remember, nobody was complaining about C WAs in general before the FF
digital bodies came out. How many of the problems are inherent lens
design vs. the fact that they aren't optimized for the needs of digital
isn't clear to me. In any case, the big deal made by the FF landscape
pixel peepers will not be seen in any but enormous prints. I'm not
saying it's not an issue, but that it is less of an issue for almost
everybody than you'd guess from the noise.
I agree we won't know about the ultimate quality of the DZ lenses for a
while. I wa amused by the designation of the DZ 50/2 as Best Lens
Available for DSLRs in Mike Johnston's list. I don't think there is a
way to know that yet. The E-400 may tell the tale.
But maybe not - how good/clean are the E-400 pixels? To quote myself, "I
have posted more than once my tests of the central portion of the 5D
sensor with the same physical area as the 300D vs. the 300D sensor
itself. The 5D section has only 5.1 mp, compared to the 6.3 mp of the
300D. Yet in side to side comparisons with all other variables the same,
the 5D sensor clearly resolves more
detail while at the same time having much less noise."
We don't know yet what kind of pixel level resolution the E-400 has. It
may take another body design iteration to find out how really good the
DZs are. Some, particularly the consumer versions that look about as
good as the pro ones with current bodies, may start to show their
limitations. I expect the pro line will generally hold up to the best
anybody makes. **
> but I have no hesitation
> to carry a bag full of them. 7-14, 14-54, 50-200 covers just about any
> opportunity. The bag is smaller and lighter than my typical OM bag.
>
:-) see above. Some of that OM stuff was pretty heavy. A while ago, I
posted the results of just grabbing my current SLR and DSLR cameras
sitting ready for use and weighing them:
OM-4, Kiron 28-200, Winder 2 - 4# 2.5oz - 1,800 g
5D with Tamron 28-300 Di, - 3# 2oz - 1,415 g
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|