On 11/7/2011 7:19 PM, Willie Wonka wrote:
> I only read about the A77, I have handled the A55 and it is tiny, it is just
> as small as my Minolta A200, which is a subcompact.
The A77 is the same size/weight as the 60D. I didn't realize the A55 is smaller.
> I honestly don't understand how a smaller camera would be comfortable
I have happily used compact, fixed lens cameras for many years, currently Canon
G11 and Samsung WB650(HZ35W). Of course,
they are a different sort of camera than an SLR.
> and my hands are really small.
Are you sure you want to admit that?
> I dissed the G3 for several reasons, exposed sensor (actually I dont know
> this for sure, at least the 1 and 2 were). IS in the lens...and a lot more.
That's someone else's thing, I'd have to look it up.
> I also know of the 60D. It has attractive design, but the "exposure
> simulation" as Canyon calls it is so primitive, even my A200 which is now
> seven years old does it much better (actually except for other Sony cameras
> there is still no camera that could come even remotely close to the A200 in
> that department) Yes, it also works in all settings, not only manual.
Doesn't matter to me, as I haven't used that feature. I was just pointing out
that others do the same sort of thing.
> As far as adapters available, I dont know. I dont intend to use any of my
> old lenses, as far as I know, there are limitations for using those.
Were funds unlimited, I'd take the same position, and might or might not have
gone Sony. As it is, I stayed with Canon
for the various EF lenses and the adapters for various other specialized
lenses, bellows, etc. that I have. And I have
to say, I'm happy with it.
> I view cameras as tools, that would help me achieve the result I want.
My feelings exactly. The equipment is tools; use the ones that let you do what
you want.
> I dont remember who was, but long time ago someone on this list shared that
> he was challenging himself to shoot with only one lens, of fixed focal
> length, I think it was 50mm. I always wandered how many opportunities he
> missed, while trying to adapt himself to the tool instead the other way
> around.
Not an uncommon idea. It has always seemed to me to be rooted in some sort of
asceticism or left over puritanism. If
they are happy, that's fine, but it makes no sense to me.
> Wayne has to put down a firm set of requirements, but I think too small is
> equally as bad as the too large.
I tend to agree. I've gone smaller for DSLR. Although I did so mostly mostly
for an articulated live view LCD, the
smaller size and lower weight are welcome. I am as yet unconvinced by all the
ILCs. Sure, they are small, but by the
time you put lenses on them, they still aren't pocket/beltable. For me, it's
DSLR and high end compact. In between
doesn't work. Lots of interesting ones out there, but the best match for my
needs is still the Canon G series.
Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|