As always, Winsor has hit several points in an elegant way...
>
> The 10MP sweet spot is available now on 2x3 sensors. There is the
> Sony, and the D200 and probably the D80 being announced this week. If
> you really like the 4x3 format
I'm not particularly in love with any format. I currently work with the OMs
and my old Nikons , with the standard 35 format, my Hasselblads with the 6x6
format, and my Xpan with the 2.66x1 proportion. I certainly never have
considered prints to a standard paper size to mean anything. (and bear with
me, I'm getting to a point.)
> There is just not that much difference between 8MP and 10MP. There
> are enough comparisons in the dpreview.com reviews to make that
> clear. Plus there are other differences. The Canon 350D gets more
> resolution out of its 8MP sensor than the Oly E-330 gets out of its
> 8MP Panasonic sensor and the Oly has moiree at the limit unlike the
> Canon.
Canon has certainly set the standard for digital cameras, but I have some
issues, see below. The whole business of mp is a moving target, certainly.
> Limiting yourself to a_camera_ with image stabilization seems to
> really restrict your choices when cameras without it can offer it in
> their lenses.
I'm not limiting myself to cameras with built in satbilization. Although it
has obvious advantages, there are some who think it is less effective, as
you note below. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, it isn't a requirement for all
lenses, but a total lack of availability is a deal-breaker.
90 percent of the DSLRs sold currently are Canon or
> Nikon. They offer that feature in selected lenses where it makes
> sense and the few comparison tests have shown that it works better
> than sensor plane stabilization. In addition, all indications are
> that the next two years will be a competitive bloodbath. If you can
> guess which of the makers of the remaining 10 percent of the market
> will survive that, you need to be trading stocks and making money.
> Most people seem to be betting that Sony will bite into Canon and
> Nikon a little bit and
I woldn't bet on anyone other than Canon and Nikon. Unfortunately, this is
one of the problems: I don't like either company's lenses across the board.
I shoot a lot with wide angles, and that's Canon's weakest area. If I were
shooting sports or wildlife, Canon would be great. Likewise, some of the
Nikkors have, well, intersting bokeh. Now, I'm not a bokeh-hound, but with
some of the Nikkors, it really bothers me. It doesn't seem like the
disigners have that consideration anywhere in the list of priorities.
> So far Olympus and Panasonic have not solved the noise problem as
> well as some other makers. I don't think that is as serious an issue
> as some, but the ability to take previously impossible pictures is a
> persuasive argument from Moose. Hoping that Oly will make a great
> leap forward by coming up with a higher resolution sensor with
> smaller sites and lower noise may be expecting too much of a small
> company whose research budget is geared to production that is a
> distant third to the big two makers.
Having gone to the OM's in the late seventies, I am painfully aware of
Olympus' faults. I have stated before that I don't think they will survive
the wars.
>
> I think Moose made a very rational decision getting his 5D. It gives
> him the resolution and low noise that he wants and you seem to be
> saying you want. Plus it has the ability to mount just about any lens
> made. And he is using it now.
I haven't said this before, but I did consider the 5D, and it isn't entirely
out of the picture. It is expensive, at the top end of what I want to spend
at the end of a career, but I'm not comfortable with the size. I never liked
big cameras, and I don't suppose at my age I'll change.
> The lens. The Panasonic with Leica lens has a price of $1900 which
> will be less on the street. A real Leica 28-90 zoom lens costs $3900
> at B&H. That makes it obvious that any resemblance between the two
> lenses is just in the logo they sell to Panasonic. Doubt you will
> see any difference in the images from the Oly lens that costs the
> same without paying anything to Leica.
I'm interested in the lens because of the stabilization, not the red dot.
If, however, Leica is as good as Zeiss was with the G lenses, it should be
outstanding.
>
> Why not a Canon 20D with an IS lens? $1500 at B&H. No waiting.
I have played with a 20D. As before, it's just more camera than I want to
carry.
I suppose I should have mentioned size and weight sooner.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|