It was Ian's Canon IID, or something, which was massive. I didn't
realise that the 5D was so "compact" :-)
My only concern with the E-3's size is fitting it into my current
bags. I think my wife would have me committed if I bought any more
bags; she thinks that I might have a fetish with them ... ;-)
Chris
On 5 Dec 2007, at 12:25, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I guess you didn't look at any Canyon offerings if you think the E-3
> is
> small in comparison. Here's a little table with dimensions in mm and
> weight in grams w/o battery:
>
> Camera Width Height Depth Weight
> E-3 142 116 75 800
> 5D 152 113 75 810
> 40D 146 108 74 740
>
> The 40D is the closest competitor feature-wise. It lacks the in-
> body IS
> and the articulating screen for it's live view which is probably what
> allows it to be a bit lighter than the E-3. But the E-3 is definitely
> not small in comparison to its competition.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|