"Ack!" The hater of Olympus and 4/3rds joins Dpreview!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Waterproof case for A570IS or Waterproof Camera
Next: Dpreview. Strapped for real news, or in sales pitch mode?
From: David J Taylor on 25 Jan 2010 03:02 "mith" wrote in message news:01a12dfa$0$14196$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > On 2010-01-24 15:22:34 +0000, David J Taylor said: [] > The only thing that made me fuel this discussion was a rather sarcastic > "You really don't know?" from Bruce, that i didn't like and i still > think its innacurate as Olympus was a company that inovated in the > digital camera market and still makes pretty good products (my 1st > digital Olympus was an E-20 and i still love it today). Of corse Canon, > Nikon and some others inovated too, but you can't dismiss a brand like > Olympus like you did. > > Anyway, thanks for all the input :) Yes, it's a pity when people have to bring in insults rather than contribute something positive. There are one or two in my killfile for just that reason. I do hope it's not me who you think is dismissing Olympus - far from it. Olympus was one of the cameras I considered when moving to DSLR - I got as far as handling one after reading the reviews - although it wasn't my final choice. Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 25 Jan 2010 05:17 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:02:46 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >I do hope it's not me who you think is dismissing Olympus - far from it. >Olympus was one of the cameras I considered when moving to DSLR - I got as >far as handling one after reading the reviews - although it wasn't my >final choice. How you didn't choke on those words I will never know. ;-) Your insincerity knows no bounds.
From: Ray Fischer on 25 Jan 2010 12:44 Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:02:46 GMT, "David J Taylor" ><david-taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> >wrote: > >>I do hope it's not me who you think is dismissing Olympus - far from it. >>Olympus was one of the cameras I considered when moving to DSLR - I got as >>far as handling one after reading the reviews - although it wasn't my >>final choice. > >How you didn't choke on those words I will never know. ;-) Maybe not everybody is as much an arrogant snob as is you. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner on 25 Jan 2010 16:20 J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > Olympus may be outsmarting themselves. While there's certainly room in the > market for an f/2.0 35-100 on 4/3, it seems like a strange place to start > out on a system one of whose major benefits is supposed to be its > compactness. IMHO, you're half-right. The 35-100 f/2 is indeed huge, which is as you say perhaps strange for a system that was supposed to enable smaller, lighter lenses. (I rented both the 14-35 and 35-100 f/2 lenses a while back, so I do have some personal knowledge of it.) However, consider this: no competing company offers a direct replacement, at any size, weight, or price point. The most similar products are at least a full stop slower. The fact that the lens is as big as it is on 4/3 may suggest why it doesn't have direct competitors on other systems: they'd be even huger. -- Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me anymore. -- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800
From: Bruce on 25 Jan 2010 17:08
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:20:43 +0000 (UTC), Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner <jdw(a)panix.com> wrote: >J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >> Olympus may be outsmarting themselves. While there's certainly room in the >> market for an f/2.0 35-100 on 4/3, it seems like a strange place to start >> out on a system one of whose major benefits is supposed to be its >> compactness. > > IMHO, you're half-right. The 35-100 f/2 is indeed huge, which is as >you say perhaps strange for a system that was supposed to enable >smaller, lighter lenses. (I rented both the 14-35 and 35-100 f/2 lenses >a while back, so I do have some personal knowledge of it.) However, >consider this: no competing company offers a direct replacement, at any >size, weight, or price point. The most similar products are at least a >full stop slower. The fact that the lens is as big as it is on 4/3 >may suggest why it doesn't have direct competitors on other systems: >they'd be even huger. The Zuiko 35-100mm f/2 gives the equivalent angle of view and maximum aperture of a 70-200mm f/2 on a full frame DSLR, or a 55-160mm f/2 on an APS-C DSLR. The very wide maximum aperture helps obtain faster shutter speeds and partly compensates for the excess depth of field of Four Thirds when compared with an f/2.8 lens of the same range of angles of view on full frame. It fully compensates for the excess depth of field of Four Thirds when compared with APS-C, all other things being equal. As with all the pro grade Zuiko digital lenses, it is a stunning performer. The nearest comparison would be the Nikon G and Canon L 70-200mm f/2.8 pro lenses. Optically, the Zuiko performs better than either of them. |