I think I would take it with a grain of salt. He seems to compare the
E system with the Epson rangefinder with a Leica lens. A digital
sensor needs more retrofocus designed in than a film SLR. There is no
retrofocus at all on a rangefinder lens which is one reason why they
can be so good with film, but even more inappropriate for a sensor.
It looks like apples and oranges to me. Any system camera, Canon,
Konica-Minolta, Pentax, Nikon or Olympus, are going to be more
integrated and better than the Epson/Leica example he has.
Much as I liked my Leica years ago and have lusted after another over
the years, I really think that the cameras have become kind of
irrelevant in the overall scheme of things and the epithet "doctor
Leica" is probably appropriate. I think Puts provides the kind of ego
stroking commentary that buyers of a luxury device are pleased with.
I would hate to see the E system become the intern system as a
stepping stone to the doctor Leica. :-)
And here is a thought. I have never seen such a group of people with
no brand loyalty as some of the pros that post on some forums. If the
E system were head and shoulders above everyone else these guys would
shift en masse in an instant. I think we just have to be happy Oly is
finally a player again and making a reasonably competitive camera.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 27, 2005, at 10:02 AM, jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I take it you don't think much of Putts' arguments in favor
> of the E system? (I'm trying not to inhale, actually ...)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|