Three: Nikon doesn't mind competitive cameras with the Nikon mount, because
it expands the market for their lenses. If you're trying to get people to
buy lenses to fit your body, you're strongly motivated to reduce the cost of
your bodies. If the difference in price between a full-frame body and a 4/3
body is only $200 or $300, which would you buy?
Good discussion. The answer (for me) is "it depends". If it is the
difference between $1700 and $2000, my answer is "neither".
If the answer is "$800 vs $1000" -- then it depends on the rest of the
"system". Good Nikon AF lenses are expensive. If a nice kit of lenses can
be built for an APS or 4/3" system for substantially less than Nikon and
those lenses are lighter and "brighter", gladly, I would go with a smaller
overall system, even if bodies were comparable prices.
There has been lots of debate on various web sites about what Olympus
really means with respect to their 4/3 standard. And I did read the one
discussion that implied what was really meant was a 4:3 aspect ratio. But
most other news items suggest a 4/3" sensor size is what was meant and to
me, that makes the most sense.
I do hope Pentax and/or Oly/Fuji come up with a great "less than full size"
solution(s). I hope it comes with a killer collection of affordable lenses
too. I've glanced at the prices for good Nikon/Canon glass. It's not
< 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 >