On 7 Jun 2005 at 10:59,
Mark Dapoz <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Timpe, Jim wrote:
> >
> > Mark said:
> >
> > The E-1 isn't that big:
> > E-1: 141mm x 104mm x 81mm 660g
> > OM-1: 136mm x 83mm x 50mm 510g
> > E-300: 146.5mm x 85mm x 64mm 580g
> >
> > Sure the E-300 is closer to an OM-1, but the E-1 isn't that much heavier
> > than an OM-1.
> > -mark
> >
> > 30% is significant to me. I only handled an E-1 briefly for an afternoon,
> > and have only had the E-300 for about a week now, but it does feel closer to
> > OM-ness. How's that for scientific, y'all?
>
> Nah, a 1Ds MKII at 1565g is significant :-)
> -mark
Hey, that magnum photog carried 6 of those C8080s
Size 4.9" (W) x 3.3" (H) x 3.9" (D) (124mm x 84.5mm x 99mm)
Weight 23.3 oz. (660 g) without battery or xD card
so 6 x c8080 = 3960g
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur --
,__@ tOM Trottier
_-\_<, 758 Albert St., Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*) N45.412 W75.714 +1 613 231-6115
<a href="http://Abacurial.com";>Abacurial Information
Architecture</a>
Q, Q,
</ </ I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences
(`-/---/-') attending too much liberty than to those attending
~~@~~~~@~~~~~~ too small a degree of it.-Thomas Jefferson
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|