Without batteries the 5D II weighs 810 grams and the E3 weighs 800. At
152 x 114 x 75 mm (6.0 x 4.5 x 2.9 in) the 5D II is 10mm wider and 2mm
taller and thickness is identical. Both are big cameras but here isn't
enough difference in size and weight between the two to worry about.
Chuck Norcutt
Chris Barker wrote:
> Thanks, Ian.
>
> You didn't mention size or portability; I have always assumed that
> the 5D... would be heavier to carry and therefore less likely to be
> in my bag.
>
> I have to say that I sometimes miss the compactness (relative, of
> course) of the E-1. But I have my E-420 (for Four Thirds lenses) and
> GF-1 (fixed focal length and manual Zuikos) for portability. On that
> subject, I have developed supraspinatus tendonitis to add to my
> epicondylitis (tennis/golfer's elbow) so am forbidden from carrying
> heavy bags at the moment.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 25 Jan 2010, at 10:46, SwissPace wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> I still pick up the E-3 if I am in a hurry and its raining but
>> with the manual lenses on the 5D2 I find I am getting less focus
>> errors by doing it manually and less incorrect exposures now I have
>> settled on Aperture priority mode. The 5D2 is already showing dust
>> on the focusing screen (not the sensor) whereas I have yet to see
>> any on the E-3.
>>
>> With everyone discussing the smaller cameras, it is possible I will
>> sell the E-3 gear and get something smaller, I would however miss
>> the 7-14 so maybe this won't happen ;-)
>>
>> So in conclusion I like it, is it a huge leap forward over the E-3?
>> - well for my use not really but I do like being able to use my OM
>> lenses properly and for that job it does it better than the E-3.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|