Moose howled thusly:
> Yeah, yeah, but your opinion don't count, 'cause you never buy ANY of this
> stuff. You can posit that the stated desire
> for about 28-135 doesn't really matter for someone else. You can natter about
> what you would buy, if you ever bought
> anything but phone cameras, and change it every week or so, at no cost and
> with no actual picture taking consequences. :-)
Hmm. No more often than two year intervals. My Google Nexus camera
phone was finally reaching the point of rapid death. I would dare say
that for my embracing the "connected camera" the way I have, I've
chosen to be current with technology AND technique. Some of you have
chosen to eschew the "connected camera" because of your own perceived
advanced age, bias or head-in-the-sand attitudes. This isn't new. I
was shooting digitally back in the mid '90s with a couple of you maybe
remembering my emailing pictures of my daughter minutes after she was
born. (Back in those days, it took a camcorder, video digitizing
PCMCIA card and a laptop with modem).
In the last several years, while the Moose has bought multiple digital
cameras in the quest for something better because the old one wasn't
good enough but he bought them anyway, I've bought or been gifted
multiple cameras. I did FINALLY sell the E-1 this last year, but my
reasoning is pretty specific--It doesn't take the Eye-Fi card. Why is
that? Because I value the "connected camera" that much. Oh, and the
Panasonic DMC-L1 is a pretty decent camera and satisfies my retro
nerdiness enough that I'm not going all mushy over the Fujis.
But I'm sorry you feel that since I don't ever buy any new cameras I
shouldn't have an opinion on any of them. Well, to some extent you are
correct, but maybe, maybe not in this circumstance. Why? Because I
think I have a pretty good idea of what camera gear Bill has and what
he likes. Don't forget that while you were off on your "Canon rules,
Olympus drools" dock walk, Bill and I were still shooting OM-2S and
E-1 cameras. Our kits were and probably are still close enough to be
almost interchangeable.
> Whoa, whoa, whoa, when did the A7 get in the mix? I thought we were talking
> NEX. Year, I know Sony terminology is
> getting more incomprehensible than Dr Who. Still ...
> The A7 body alone eats up 85% of the budget. They are talking lenses, but
> this is Sony, Dood! Only a 35/2.8 actually
> buyable as yet, with an exciting 55/1.8 promised this month. Wheeeee! The
> carry around zoom, 24-70/4, possibly actually
> available for summer, is shorter than the Fuji, and slower, and breaks the
> bank, at 145% of budget.
The A7 enters the mix (not necessarily the A7R, which might be
overkill for everybody but the insane), because it is the same price
AND size/weight as the EM1. Who gives a rip about the lenses. Bill and
and I both have an extensive collection of OM glass that puts the Sony
stuff to shame. See previous paragraph. I would consider it a huge
mistake to consider the EM1 without evaluating the A7 too. By getting
the A7 and an adapter, Bill is able to meet budget. He's got more F2
glass than Texas has Republicans.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|