TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] GAS

Subject: Re: [OM] GAS
From: "Pearce, Wilfred via olympus" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:55:32 +0000
Cc: "Pearce, Wilfred" <pearce@xxxxxxxx>
Actually, for photographing airplanes here in Alaska, this could be a
handy lens. Alas, I'd need to actually make money with it and that
seems like work.


Until retirement,, I had to use this excuse. It worked surprisingly well with 
OM, and ever better, although more expensive with Hasselblad, and really really 
well with nikon digital.


I've looked at Canon's latest/greatest RF mount cameras. Honestly, if
I was going completely "green field" into a new system, I'd be tempted
to go there.


Were I even only slightly interested in Canon's appliances, er I mean cameras, 
I would need to carefully examine the WA offerings. Canon has a checkered 
history in wides. But a look at Canon history will show you their concentration 
on long lenses. But  their cameras are slightly less exciting that a Camry. I 
find the as exciting as a refrigerator, but that's just me.



________________________________
From: olympus <olympus-bounces+pearce=kmuw.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 2:19:18 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] GAS

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Wichita State University. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.


> But it's "only" 1,800 grams. That's not much more than a fool-frame DSLR body 
> alone.

Hmm. That's about twice as heavy as the 50-200 SWD. I wouldn't want to
go hiking with it as a matter of course, but I certainly could make
use of the lens once in a blue moon to photograph blue moons.
Actually, for photographing airplanes here in Alaska, this could be a
handy lens. Alas, I'd need to actually make money with it and that
seems like work.

Whatever I suggest should be acknowledged as being polar opposite of
the proper thing to do. In fact, let me be the poster-child of "don't
do this".

I've looked at Canon's latest/greatest RF mount cameras. Honestly, if
I was going completely "green field" into a new system, I'd be tempted
to go there. For Alaska photography, I still think Canon's colors are
off, but now not quite so offensively so. The problem I have with
Canon is that it's as desirable to use as a Toyota Camry. Nothing
exciting. Absolutely nothing inventive and unique. It's just a
completely uninspiring blob-o-camera. For me, this is critical because
I get inspiration from my tools.

The best overall system at this point-in-time is still the Sony
full-frames. In spite of a few significant usability issues, this
camera mount has the impressive third-party support I've seen and the
choices in lenses from so many brands and generations is
mind-boggling. I just wish it had Olympus "color science."

AG 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/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>