Lawrence Woods wrote:
>After 32 years using OM-1s and 2s, it is time for me to go
>digital. I have to do it on a budget for now, with a limit of
>about US $800, excluding memory cards.
>
>The features I would like include manual focusing capability,
>
>
They all allow that. How easy it is depends on your eyes on the small
viewfinders.
>a big, bright SLR-style viewfinder,
>
This is simply not possible, as a matter of optical physics, on the
small sensors in the Oly and other small sensor DSLRs. The cheapest DSLR
that will even be in the ballpark with the OM-1 & 2 is the Can*n 5D,
with full frame sensor.
>no (well, very little)shutter-lag,
>
Not a problem on current models. The Oly models are slower than other
DSLRs at time from on to picture because of the dust shaker.
>good high ISO
>
Well, that all depends on your definition/needs. Many people with E-1s
are happy with the higher speeds, some others are not. The Evolts are an
improvement, but not in the same class with the Can*ns above iso 400.
Among others, this is probably the biggest reason I have an Can*n,
instead of an E-1.
>and/or image stabilization,
>
>
Doesn't exist in the Oly DSLR world. Yet? Wouldn't matter much if they
had noise performance comparable to Can*n. I'm crossing my finger about
the new sensor in the E-330.
>excellent optics,
>
No problem. So far, all DZ lenses seem to range from very good to
excellent except fot the 17.5-45 mm, which Andrew F tested and found
wanting. so far, it hasn't appeared in the US
>and finally the small size, quality construction and sturdiness I am used to
>in the OMs.
>
The size doesn't exist except in Penta*x, which has other serious
drawbacks. The E-300 so far is the closest, but it has a love it or hate
it design.
>I know I won't get it all, and may not even get much to stay in budget.
>
>Assuming I stay in the Olympus world, the first question is
>whether it is worth choosing the 14-54mm lens over the
>14-45mm. Is the 14-54 visibly sharper? The wider maximum
>f-stop seems important to me, especially without image
>stabilization.
>
>
Biggest difference seems to be the obvious, speed, and more linear
distortion on the cheaper lens. Otherwise, the 14-45 is quite good. I've
both heard that here and you can look at
<http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1445_3556/index.htm>.
The rest of your questions will have to be addressed by folks with these
cameras in hand.
If you really want good low light performance on a budget, a used Can*n
300D with 50/1.8 is the most bang for the buck. You should even have
enough left over for a 35/2 or a modest zoom of some sort.
If you want Oly on that budget, I'd say one of the E-xxx bodies,
depending on price and handling, they are very different, and a 14-45.
Or wait a bit until your available cash and the available options cross
at something closer to what you want.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|