Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] My New Year's Eve with a 5D MkII

Subject: Re: [OM] My New Year's Eve with a 5D MkII
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:16:35 +0000
Thanks, Chuck, but I suppose that I was looking for a subjective  
assessment of the feel between the 2 rather than an objective summary  
of their dimensions.

There again, I have never seen a 5D, let alone handled one.  I don't  
suppose that I have missed much by that omission ... :-)

Chris

On 2 Jan 2009, at 14:08, Chuck Norcutt wrote:

> 5D Mark II            $2700  ($2000 for 5D)
> Dimensions            152 x 114 x 75 mm (6.0 x 4.5 x 2.9 in)
> Weight (no battery)   810 g (29oz)
>
> Olympus E3            $1429
> Dimensions            142 x 116 x 75 mm (5.6 x 4.6 x 2.9 in)
> Weight (no battery)   800 g (28oz)
>
> There's very little difference in size and weight.  It's interesting  
> to
> note that the difference in width (10mm) is less than the difference  
> in
> sensor width (18.7mm).  Maybe the E3 needs that for the anti-shake.
>
> So, not much difference in the bodies but what happens when you add an
> equivalent pair of high end constant aperture lenses?  One weighs  
> more,
> the other weighs less.  The E3 body costs much less but the lenses  
> cost
> much more.  But the Zuikos are a stop faster although not so wide on  
> the
> wide end.
>
> Canon 24-70/2.8L      4.9" (124mm) x 3.3" (83mm) - 34oz (950g)  $1039
> Canon 70-200/2.8L*    7.7" (196mm) x 3.4" (86mm) - 51oz (1458)  $1488
>
> Zuiko 14-35/2.0               4.8" (123mm) x 3.4" (86mm) - 32oz (915g)  $1852
> Zuiko 35-100/2.0*     8.4" (214mm) x 3.8" (97mm) - 58oz (1650g) $1950
>
> *without Tripod Adapter
>
> Total weight and cost for body and two lenses
> 5D Mark II            3218g (114oz)  $5227 ($4527 for 5D)
> E3 -                  3365g (119oz)  $5231
>
> So, the E3 and a pair of fast lenses weighs more and costs more than  
> the
> 5D Mark II and its pair of 1 stop slower lenses.  And quite a bit more
> than a 5D and the same lenses.  When I bought OM in the '70s it was
> because it was smaller, lighter and cheaper. It seems that Olympus has
> lost its way on small, light and cheap.
>
> Perhaps a better comparison would be with the 12-60/2.8-4 and
> 50-200/2.8-3.5 but there the Zuikos have lost their speed advantage  
> and
> are no longer constant aperture.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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