Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: What would you do? Now: Horse racing and dog. Well sort of . .

Subject: [OM] Re: What would you do? Now: Horse racing and dog. Well sort of . . .
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:35:49 -0500
I don't really know what's driving Bob but I thought it was the ability 
to make very large prints.  If that's the motivating factor I'm 
surprised that his choice is not a 5D or some other full frame variant. 
  It doesn't look like Nikon is going there and a Nikon APS-C sensor 
just isn't a whole lot larger than 4/3.  Here I'm talking the physical 
dimensions of the sensor and not the current pixel count implementation.

I just wish I could have a 5D sensor in a body with the egronomics of 
  a Nikon or a Minolta.  I'd have said an E-1 except that, good as it 
is, it's really technologically dated by other than just the sensor now.

I stayed with Canyon for Oly lens compatibility and ultimately chose the 
5D for the large sensor.  I'd still do the same for the sake of the 
large sensor but have come to realize that lens compatibility is a nice 
little extra that's not worth a great deal in the end since it only 
boils down to a couple of lenses which could easily be replaced.

Chuck Norcutt

NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>  
> In a message dated 11/29/2006 4:36:48 PM Central Standard Time,  
> bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> 
> A lot of  folks here are
> slipping away to the Big 2, and I fear I'm one of them. When  the time comes,
> and it ain't far away, I'll be making the jump, probably to  Nikon, but that
> ain't hammered into the stone yet. I've got stuff I need to  do that my E-1
> just can't handle as well as current offerings from the Big  2, never mind
> what the Big 2 will be unveiling as Oly finally trots out the  E-3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little curious why folks are thinking of going to Nik*n as opposed to  
> Can*n.  It is not that Nik*n doesn't make a good camera, but rather if you  
> have a choice why you would choose a digital camera on which you weren't 
> going  
> to be able to use your OM glass in the event that you wanted to do so.  My  
> remarks need to be tempered by my saying that my first "real" 35mm SLR was a  
> Nikon F with several great Nikon lenses that was purchase in 1968.  At that  
> time Nikon owned the high end SLR market.  They have however managed to  
> relinquish that position to Canon over the past 40 years or so.  So my real  
> question 
> is, "Why, if the horse you are riding isn't getting you to the finish  line, 
> would you change to the horse which is in second place when you could  mount 
> up 
> on the lead horse just as easily?"  Is there some need to be the  underdog 
> that is driving us to Nikon rather than Canon?  Inquiring minds  want to 
> know.  
> Why Nikon rather than Canon?  <[8^)  Bill  Barber
> 
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz