> The AF was not as bad as reviews have indicated. In good light, it was only
> slightly slower than my D3 and D700, and much faster than my M9. In poor
> light, it would either focus quickly, or not at all.
That blasted AF on the M9 is just horrid. HORRID I tell you! You
might as well just focus the lens yourself.
> Some reactions: It is indeed possible to minaturize a camera body with
> improved electronics, but a lens will always be what it is. There is no
> rational way to make a zoom lens that is in porportion with the body.
Which then begs the question: How is the resulting image quality in
comparison to the Canon S90? If size AND image-quality are the driving
characteristics we seek, then just get the S90 and be happy.
If you want it so it can take other lenses, well, then the size factor
no longer applies. An interchangeable-lens, larger-sensor POCKETABLE
camera is an oxymoron.
But on a positive note--the lenses do have silver noses.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|