Everything I've read on this and the E-20N is that they're great for
what they are, and I wouldn't refuse one if given. But everyone who has
one mentions, if not complains, about write speeds, especially for RAW.
The glass, not surprisingly, is universally praised.
Earl
iddi wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:06:25 -0700, Chuck Norcutt
><chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>>iddi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just not sure if
>>>the monstrous looking lens (as fine as it is) will be intimidating to
>>>people on the receiving end).
>>>
>>>
>>-----------------------------------------
>>
>>Of course it will! But that's part of the image. Then they'll think
>>you're a pro. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you show up to
>>shoot pictures toting a camera no bigger than grandma's.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>
>The charm of the OM1/35-70 3.6 combo was that it didn't shout "i'm
>serious" and therefore candids can be done more easily. the E10, on the
>other hand, is a bit more in your face. Good news is, i've measured my
>OM1n/35-70/3.6+hood combo. width and length are identical, 5 and 6"
>respectively. E10 is 4" high, OM1n is 2" high. Looks good so far. Monday
>morning :)
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|