I agree. I think there is also an emotional response. When I handled
several cameras(before the E-1 was out), the "Wow. What a nice camera."
reaction while playing with it made my decision. Can't count features.
Can't weigh whether noise is 1.4 or 1.8 when neither will show it on a
print anyway. The problem with digital is that we are going to turn our
cameras over more frequently and they will never have the years of use
our film cameras had for them to become second nature. So being
immediately comfortable is important. But maybe the huge increase of
taking shots with digital will make up the difference.
One thing to consider with high use is wearing out components. With
film cameras a photographer might have used it 20 years before
exceeding the lifetime of any of the components. With the increased
shooting encouraged by digital, camera shutters and mirrors are
sometimes failing after 3 or 4 years with people who shoot a lot. They
have done their 300, 000 shots. So if you shoot a lot I would go for a
more pro camera with beefier components. Or you could take the attitude
that when it breaks you will replace it with a current model with the
latest tweaks to the features and the imager.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Oct 19, 2004, at 9:01 AM, AG Schnozz wrote:
> What this comes down to is ignoring specifications and feature
> lists. You'll never beat Canon in that department. If you are
> into numbers, pick Canon. If you are into selecting the best
> possible tool FOR YOU, you've got to ignore the specs (as long
> as they meet a basic standard, of which nearly everything on the
> market attains), and pick the one system that REALLY gives you
> the comfort and confidence you need. It might be Canon, Nikon,
> Minolta, Pentax or Olympus.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|