Actually, I don't agree. The D100 is physically larger, but it handles
quite well. As a comparison, I just mounted the Tamron 28-200 on the OM-4T
and the 28-200 Nikkor on the D100 and weighed them. The Tamron was the
closest equivalent to the Nikon 36-300 effective, since Olympus never made a
similar zoom.
The OM-4 with lens OUTWEIGHED the Nikon with lens.
Now, some will argue that a Zuiko would have been smaller and lighter.
Yes, it would, but they never made one. Same with the wide angle zoom. My
18-36 equivalent compares to the Zuiko, oh, nothing.
Don't forget consumables too. I can carry one heck of a lot of 'film' in a
small place with digital cards. Even if I need to go for a week or a month,
my X-drive is pretty small and light.
I agree they could be smaller and I bought the OM because it was little, but
the D100 (and E20) feel and work right.
Tom
>
> On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 03:41 PM, AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the smaller the imaging "sensor" the larger the
> > camera? For example, the DSLRs have been HUGE! Or back up to
> > the EOS-1n and the Nikon F5. These cameras are massive. Yet,
> > an average medium format camera weighs less and is smaller.
> > Think that Pentax 67 is big? Not when parked next to an F5.
>
> People who buy cameras are size queens and camera makers know it. Take
> a look at a Nikon forum some time as they denigrate the D100(which is
> like a tank next to an OM4T) and talk in glowing terms of the heft and
> solidity of a D1X. It is as plain as the badge on your SUV.
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
< 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 >
|