Ken,
OK, I'll bite -
The point is (IMHO) that with the OM system, you could decide weather
you needed the drive and wanted to carry it, same for the lens. One had
a choice. An OM-3ti (or any other OM single digit body) with a prime
lens, or say the 35-70 f/3.5~4 lens is a very compact set that still has
a robust body that has the same IQ as the heavier system. when I am in
the backcountry or traveling I don't need, nor do I want a motordrive,
with the OM I had an option of a small light professional system. with
DSLRs, I don't. I have to either carry a larger, heavier system, or live
with a consumer camera system, or compromise and generally get the worst
of both worlds with a 'prosumer' camera. Yes, if you need the drive and
the 2.8 zoom the two systems are much the same, but when I don't need
those things I resent lugging around all the extra weight.
Jim Couch
Ken Norton wrote:
> I don't think I ever want to hear about how BIG and HEAVY the E-1 or E-3 are
> again. "Where are the small cameras we were promised" and "4/3 means smaller
> cameras" or my favorite "The OM system is much smaller" are common refrains
> heard when abusing our beloved 4/3 cameras.
>
> It's a crock. They ARE smaller. They ARE lighterweight.
>
> Than what, you may ask?
>
> Try the OM-3Ti, with MD-2 and 35-80 zoom. This kit is heavier and bigger
> than my E-1 with battery-grip and 14-54 zoom.
>
> The point is: When you compare equivalent systems--fully equipped, they
> truly are about about the same. But the 4/3 sensor is "smaller", therefore
> the camera should be smaller. Right? Not necessarily. The lenses are
> getting bigger and more capable. 50-200 zoom, anyone? Ever try actually
> using that beast with a gripless body? But the lenses should be smaller,
> right? Not necessarily--when you have multiple-moving lens-groups there is
> a lot of mechanics inside that have to be stuffed in there. Take away the
> moving groups and the lens simplifies and shrinks greatly. The formfactor
> of a professional body truely limits how small the dimensions can be. You
> need to have a camera of a certain bulk to be physically usable. Besides,
> now with the 3-inch LCD screens, just how can you shrink a body without
> needing to convert that LCD to a wireless brain-implant?
>
> I was struggling, I'll admit, with the 35-80 on the OM body. It just isn't
> balanced right and the lens is too heavy for old-style camera holding
> without inducing vibration. The MD2 adds enough mass and girth to the OM
> body to offset this weight imbalance and also to provide more stability with
> two hands actually supporting the system.
>
> Now, granted, the OM system is "convertable". Within seconds, I can shed
> the MD2 and place a tiny Zuiko on the body and I've got a nice compact
> Leica-Killer. But for serious event-style photography (professional use),
> the system is essentially the same size and weight as any of the higher-end
> DSLRs with battery-grip.
>
> And, yes, the OM-3Ti, MD-2 and 35-80 is one beautiful system. Classy
> looking. Can't wait to try it out with the T45. Hubba hubba.
>
> AG (6-pack abs) Schnozz
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|