2008/4/16, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Olympus also has two different systems, where the older one only
> partially works on the newer. Nikon has two different systems where the
> older one continues to work as designed on the newer cameras.
Olympus had one system (OM) and now has another, and the old lenses
continue to work as designed on newer cameras (after all, they are all
manual lenses).
Nikon has two different systems where the new (DX) won't usually work
on the old (FX, film), and the new old (FX) costs an arm and a leg.
> Tell me how that is an advantage for 4/3???
Consistency.
As Maitani said, he would loved to have had an autofocus OM and a
digital one, but keeping the OM system was prohibitive, respectively
because of the Honeywell patent and of costs of scale (for such a
relatively small company).
For those who have invested in autofocus glass, I can understand that
the pain of dealing with a system made for film and its multiple
penalties are probably worthwhile. Or for those needing the edge
cases where Cannikon, Pentax or whatever else are decisively better,
as shown in the recent Luminous Landscape second review of the E-3
(even him still keeps the E-3 as his seemingly main system). But for
me, with only an OM-1 and two manual lenses, Four Thirds was and is
the system.
FWIIW, IANAPP.
--
skype:leandro.gfc.dutra?chat Yahoo!: ymsgr:sendIM?lgcdutra
+55 (11) 3040 7300 r155 gTalk: xmpp:leandrod@xxxxxxxxxx
+55 (11) 9406 7191 ICQ/AIM: aim:GoIM?screenname=61287803
+55 (11) 5685 2219 MSN: msnim:chat?contact=leandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|