Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> The IS mechanism and the dust shaker account for some of it. But, given
> that the IS mechanism isn't in the lenses ala C & N the lenses should be
> lighter yet.
I'm also willing to bet that, because all the modern lenses contain
rare-earth-alloy ring motors to drive the autofocus, you can't reduce
their size/weight below a certain amount due to minimum requirements for
things such as magnetic field strength to drive the lens helicoids,
assembly mass, etc.
Now, if you really wanna shave some weight and size off, ditch the
motors altogether, make the lenses manual focus and put a focus
confirmation indicator in the body of the camera. *That* would go a
long way toward addressing the issues some of the people on this List
have with the size/weight issue for the lenses.
Unfortunately, it's not what the larger market is looking for -- Olympus
doesn't need to sell to the four hundred or so old-school stalwarts on
this List, but the millions of others considering one modern DSLR system
versus another. If I were an idiosyncratic third-party lensmaker with
deep pockets, I might consider making "gold standard" fixed-focal-length
manual focus primes for the 4/3rds System, but I'm betting that never
happens.
That's business. Oly needs to make profits more than friends of
old-timers (and I include myself in that category).
Garth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|