Winsor,
A number of good points. Certainly power issues and to a degree
viewfinders have improved. Storage is also non-issue for the most
part I think with 2GB cards. I am still pretty disappointed with many
of the viewfinders I see, even on fairly new cameras. some are not
bad, and admittedly with autofocus you may not need one to focus, but
you still have to be able to compose! Focusing is not the real issue
with bad viewfinders these days, it is composition! Again this is an
area where the wide angle guys get the shaft I think. When you have a
wide angle you have a lot of VERY SMALL things to keep track of in
the viewfinder, and if you don't have a good onje, it can be tough to
see if that little blob on the edge of the VF is a rock or a car! In
addition, many of the DSLR viewfinders don't offer anything close to
full coverage. With a tele shot, you are usually dealing with one or
two enlarged subjects and seeing them in a dim, small viewfinder is
not so difficult. The problem is partially one of budget. If you have
a lot of money to spend there are indeed a number of good viewfinders
out there (as well as full frame sensors!) On a budget or looking at
older used bodies your choices are more limited. There are still some
fairly newly released DSLR that have (in my mind) substandard
viewfinders. The E-500 is a prime example. i really like the camera
overall, but frankly, for me, the viewfinder is not real useable. It
does not help that my eyesight is not what it used to be. (Part of my
move to digital is autofocus availability.)
There are some WA options out there for digital, but nothing like the
tele end of things. Plus if I went with a E seires I could take my
60-120 f2.8 Tokina ATX and have a nice 120-240 zoom. My lovely 21
f2.8 becomes a fairly pedestrian 42!
I do think you point about most folks being satisfied with one good
WA. I am sure I am in the minority. I look at a lot of these do-all
lenses and think, if they just chopped a bit off the tele end and
gave me the equivalent of a 24! :) I think the majority of consumers
would rather have a bit more reach on a lens than a bit more width.
Pity. With the current quality of output, and the ease of cropping in
digital, it really is pretty easy to get a bit more 'tele' by
cropping a photo. You can't do anything similar on the wide end - add
a little more to the scene. Likewise, teleconvertors do a pretty good
job, but there is not really a quality equivalent for making a lens wider.
Even with the OMs I rarely used my long lenses. In the hills I never
carried anything longer than a 150, and even that rarely. When I went
to sell some of my OM gear the 80-210 zoom was an easy one to part
with, the 24-40 zoom very much harder. For me, the chance that I will
ever really want a really long lens is pretty small. In the past I
have owned both the Zuiko 300 & 400, and the Sigma 400 and all were
sold as they just never saw much use. I have to admit that if I had a
very compact 250-300 as would be the case with some digital
platforms, it might see more use.
As Iget closer to making a digital selection it really appears to be
boiling down to the viewfinders, and availability of (for me)
affordable wide angle lenses.
Jim Couch
At 06:32 PM 10/12/2006, you wrote:
>A very real issue I think. The focal lengths necessary to get a 21 to
>24mm equivalent with a small sensor crop gets into what was
>previously exotic lens territory. The extra effort to make them
>relatively free of distortion and color aberration with digital
>sensors at those focal lengths makes them either slow and big like
>the wide zooms, or fast and huge like the single focal lengths. All
>with exotic lens prices.
>
>On the other side of the argument is that most of us are satisfied
>with one good wide angle beyond the usual 25 to 28mm equiv. of the
>zooms and the crop factor might serve to save you much money making a
>fast, modest telephoto into an almost fast telephoto previously
>unobtainable. Consider what happens to a modest 180/2.8. 360/2.8 on
>an Oly or 288/2.8 on a Canon. Last time I checked a 300/2.8 was
>nearly $5000. At the other end a 14/2.8 which is a 21 mm equivalent
>on the more popular sensor size is about $1400, expensive but way
>cheaper than an exotic telephoto if you ever think you will want one..
>
>I don't think viewfinders are a big issue any more. There are plenty
>of cameras with good ones and they are AF cameras after all.
>Virtually all of them can have a screen with focusing aids installed
>if you have a special need manual focusing in difficult situations
>like macro. If you do frequently shoot with wide angle, I think you
>will be pleasantly surprised with autofocus.
>
>As for batteries, it is easy to carry a spare. Even back packers just
>package up several spares that will last through their trip without a
>charger. It is no worse, better in fact, that having to carry rolls
>of film like we used too. And cameras vary. I would not have needed a
>spare battery for a one week back packing trip with my D100. Probably
>could do with 2 spares with the D200 for the same time period. Big
>color LCDs and high MP use lots of battery power.
>
>One thing you might consider is a camera with two LCDs. The black and
>white one which holds the camera settings you need while you are
>shooting uses hardly any battery power at all, and the color one can
>just be turned on when you need the menu for something or to check an
>exposure in a difficult situation. Just like shooting with a film
>camera then. No chimping.
>
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California, USA
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|