Rob Harrison wrote:
> Very good points made, in that post.
>
> System compactness and lightness was exactly the reason I traded in my
> Minolta SRT-101 for an OM-1md and Zuiko lenses in 1976.
I think the better point that's being made elsewhere in that posting
stream is that you have to look at the *system* rather than just the
camera body (though it's difficult for people not already in the
professional or prosumer market niche to do that).
The Oly digital *system* is quite light and compact. The E-3 body, not,
apparently. But in my mind, I'm rapidly coming to the point where I
consider the body to be the most disposable part of the entire system,
'cause it's where all the processing power is located, and that follows
Moore's Law. It's a PC or Mac crammed into a camera body form factor,
and like all PCs/Macs, I'll get a new one in a couple of years. If
Oly's finally on the ball, the E-4 or E-5 may be no more than eighteen
months away.
I expect that Oly will continue to work on miniaturization; this
essentially is their first kick at the can to cram everything (including
what sounds like a gorgeous new optical viewfinder system) into a 4/3rds
body. I'm not surprised that they couldn't make it smaller right away,
but I look at the E-400 and my E-410, and I see a possible future. I
*certainly* expect that they'll continue to have a "consumer-grade" DSLR
with the form factor of the E-410 for the indefinite future (in fact, I
think they'd be crazy not to do so). Whether you can get all the
goodies of the E-3 into an E-410 form factor remains to be seen,
although the physics of it seems to imply that it can't be done for the
E-3's viewfinder.
Garth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|