Brian Windrum wrote
> On the other hand all OMs have the disadvantage of light weight,
> while sheer mass can help damp vibration
Is there a scientific basis to this? Because, it seems to me, that
some rather heavy objects - swimming pools of water, railway tracks,
concrete paths - transmit sound (vibration) very well. The shape
and material might matter more than the mass. Do we have any
civil engineers subscribing? Surely we have a physicist or two.
> and hand shake
Again, I've seen no evidence. What little I have seen (to do with
computer mice) suggests exactly the reverse - lighter cameras are
easier to keep steady, due to the way human muscles work. This is
also my personal experience. If heavier were better, pens and
surgical scalpels would weigh more. Those who design data
gloves and those robot arm gizmos in nuclear plants (except the
ones in Japan) must know the answer to this.
> (I've seen this given as a plus-point for the N*k*n F4).
Well they would, wouldn't they? They have never built a half-kilo
35mm SLR with a 97% viewfinder. Their ads describe the F100 as
"lightweight" at 800-900g!.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|