Why invest on expensive lenses when...

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by micha_goldfine|1, May 11, 2010.

  1. Hi guys,
    I was about to purchase a new lens for my 40D when I decided to wait for a while and check out the new 4/3 options out there. I am not a sport or action photographer but more of a street and holiday one and all those Canon/ Nikon bulky bodies seem to me to find a dead-end soon, since mirror-less cameras make more sense. They use the same size sensor, they are small, affordable and the lenses are just good. at least the primes.
    If RED cameras are becoming more and more popular in cinema then 4/3 mirror-less seem to the obvious replacement to the old and bulky prisma lens cameras.
    What do you think?
    thanks
    Micha
     
  2. It all depends on your definition of "a while" and "soon".
    The real question would be: are you a photographer who wants to take pictures *now* or not.
    Canon bodies are not going to disappear anytime "soon", that's for sure. If you don't like your 40D sell it and get something you like, otherwise your 'theory' makes very little sense.
     
  3. TTL viewfinder are much valued by many. EVIL cameras may never replace TTL for many.
    I have a 5D and an LX3 and there is nothing inbetween those sizes yet that has tempted me to buy in. I could never give up FF to buy into a smaller sensor system.
    Although the Sony NEX-5 looking interesting:
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051102sonynex.asp
     
  4. why little sense? the world is shrinking and bulky cameras don't make sense except for ergonomic reasons. 35mm cameras where not that big, in fact range finders where small and easy for journalism use.
    I like my 40D and I would even go with a full frame if I could afford one but the image results I see from the new 4/3 are just so dam good and they keep on getting better.
    just a debatable question that I was inetrested to ask.
    Micha
     
  5. I have been wanting to "downsize" from Canon to m4/3 for a while now, but common sense tells me i have a couple of L lenses and i am worried that i won't be happy with the glass quality. I'm sure the pics will look great... but "L" great? i can't afford to have 2 systems... I wish i could. I rented a 5dMk2 for the last wedding i did, which was awesome, but 75% of my photography is my kids on the weekends, and having something compact would be amazing. I handled the EPL-1 last week, and fell instantly in love.
     
  6. Delete posting, sorry....
     
  7. zml

    zml

    Electronic Viewfinders don't deliver uninterrupted viewing (these pesky lines need to be refreshed...) which makes the entire concept a non-starter for many people/applications (yeah, there is a VF blackout in SLR type cameras but it occurs after shutter release.) FF is not going anywhere and for a variety of reasons smaller sensors are inferior for many applications.
    Besides, smaller not always equals better: imagine a smallish body (even a Rebel) with a 400/2.8 lens attached...How comfortable that would be! Ergonomics trumps many a factor in camera selection if you shoot often and for long hours.
     
  8. I have had a G1 for about 18 months and it is quite a good little camera. Can it replace my Canon DSLRs - NO and here is why
    1 AF is slow and useless for fast action e.g. sports
    2 Quality above ISO 400 is very poor
    3 Limited lens selection
    4 While the EVF is usable it cannot compare to an optical viewfinder for subtle work
    5 Feature set rather limited (flash / lighting support, frame rate, bracketing etc...)
    6 Build quality is OK but would not survive hard use
    7 Only way to get good bokeh and shallow DOF is with exotic glass (e.g. Canon FD 85 F1.2 at F1.2)
    8 Low light shooting (even at low ISO) produces rather poor, noisy images - I was informed this was due to the small sensor getting hot
    So why did I buy one?
    Well I got it to put old FD glass onto a digital body.
    What is good about it
    1 Image quality at low ISO in bright light is quite good - certainly good enough for 17x11 inch prints
    2 Small portable size
    3 Articulated LCD display is very useful for macro and low level shots
    4 Can use old FD glass
    Here is an image from the G1 (I think the lens used was the old FD 80-200 F4L zoom)
    00WRIJ-243315584.jpg
     
  9. Image quality is different to image aesthetics and you cannot replicate FF fast glass on a smaller sensor. Even if you get the sensor in a small mirrorless body you are left with the size of the fast glass.
    If Canon release an APS sensor in a mirrorless body that will take EF lens I'm in otherwise it's high end compacts until then.
     
  10. Of course, a G1 with an 80-200 f/4L on it makes the portability point a bit moot... :)
    @Micha: "little sense" because they are NOT the same cameras. They don't have the same features, ISO performance, etc... at least, not today.
    With everything else being equal one would opt for a smaller/lighter rig (most of the time) but, the fact is that today, everything else is NOT equal. So, you have to decide what the most important features are for you and select your camera kits accordingly.
    For me, there is no way I would *replace* my DSLRs kits with those other cameras.
     
  11. I am looking for something smaller too but I would not replace my 5d2. I must admit I have had my eye on 4/3 for a while now but I am probably leaning toward an advanced p/s. IMO at this stage in the game 4/3 is way off of what a 5d2 can do but for most general use it would be more then enough for me. I just wonder how much smaller 4/3 is compared to a rebel once you use a larger lens then the pancake and ad the viewfinder. Tough call but I think many people who shoot for fun are thinking this way.
     
  12. the sensors for 4/3 are smaller. sony and samsung have bigger sensors. unless you plan on shooting without a tripod and a viewfinder idk what you think image quality will be like.
    with a tripod, sure. i guess i cant see the problem.
     
  13. Yes forget 4/3 sensors now (sorry GF1) APS sensors are here in the same sized mirrorless bodies although they will always require larger glass.
     
  14. [[Besides, smaller not always equals better: imagine a smallish body (even a Rebel) with a 400/2.8 lens attached...How comfortable that would be!]]
    You shoot the 400mm f/2.8 hand-held?
     
  15. stp

    stp

    I want to be able to print quite large, and I use lenses from 14mm to 500mm (FF). m4/3 has appeal to me only for a camera that I can easily carry when my intention is not photography but when I might happen on something very worthy of a photo. Besides, using a variety of different types of cameras (film, digital, medium format, large format, WLF) is simply fun.
     
  16. I do some of my "serious" photography with a little G11 now. The reason I carry it is because it's small and can ALWAYS travel with me in my purse, just in case I happen to see something interesting. Case in point: I was in an auto parts store a couple of days ago, buying a bulb. A guy walks in with a parrot on his shoulder. The bird is his best buddy, and they go everywhere together. I thought, "cool" and asked him if he minded me photographing them for a series I'm doing that profiles Americans in everyday life. He said to go ahead, so I pulled out my G11 and did so. Both he and his bird moved so quickly and so randomly that it was hard (I mean REALLY HARD) to get a good shot of the two of them, considering the shutter lag. I eventually did, but it took a LOT of shots. I really wished at that time that I had been holding my (relatively huge) 5D, because I could have nailed what I wanted in a few frames.
    That evening I went for a walk on the beach. There were lots of fishing boats that looked really nice against the landscape of the harbor and the dusk sky behind. I mounted my G11 on a Tiltall I had in the truck (which was kinda funny) and took the shot. It came out great, but it would have come out better with my 5D.
    Yesterday we took a drive up the coast. I took my 5D and a few likely lenses. 'Nuff said.
    Do I still like and use my G11? Of course! I bought it because it's small and light and because I can carry it with me always (in the same spirit that the best camera is the one you have with you). However, it's not even in the same ballpark as my 5D in its capabilities.
    In case you're interested, I wrote a technical and rather comprehensive comparison of formats here:
    http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm
    I might look at a full frame, semi-compact digital (size of my Leica IIIf, for instance, with telescoping 50mm lens) a bit differently. Until then, I love my 5D much more than I love my G11.
     
  17. zml

    zml

    > You shoot the 400mm f/2.8 hand-held?
    Yep. Not that it's easy - over 17 lbs with 1D4 attached to it. But even when mounted on a monopod, holding/manipulating a small body is not comfortable even with a 5D/xxD sized camera. Small cameras do have a place in photography but not for everything.
     
  18. the world is shrinking and bulky cameras don't make sense except for ergonomic reasons.​
    How does the size of the world relate to the size of a camera?
     
  19. How does the size of the world relate to the size of a camera?
    you know what I mean. -)
    M​
     
  20. thanks guys for the replies. as I mention in my post I did not compare FF cameras to 4/3 but rather the cropped sensor ones since they are starting to become very similar cameras except for the FOV etc...
    Having 2 cameras (or more) is great but that was not my debatable question. I was only asking about the use of a APS-C bulky cameras against the new and very good 4/3.
    by the way...Sony can kiss my .... hate that company. how stupid is the NEX? that's an ergonomic disaster.
    Micha
     
  21. Micha, is 4/3 that much smaller then a rebel series camera? I cant seem to find any comparisons that show the size on the web.
     
  22. I've never contemplated a 4/3's at all until this showed up in my inbox today, .... very very
    intriguing. Cheers!
    http://digital-photography-school.com/sony-nex-3-review
    edit: I should have noted, this isn't a 4/3's camera but size wise it's as small as one,
    is mirror-less and it's APS-C too.
     
  23. i was just reading this post when i decided to text a buddy of mine to ask if he bought a camera yet. He sold a dslr awhile back but just wants something he can carrie around with him. he said no he didnt buy it yet (Canon G11). So I decided to look on the net and after seaching found this http://www.photoxels.com/pr-sony-nex3-nex5/
     
  24. What do I think?
    I think I wouldn't be caught dead shooting with a 4/3 camera unless I didn't care much about the subject (in which case I wouldn't be shooting it anyway).
    I think might use a 4/3 camera to take shots for Ebay, for example, if and only if my DSLR's were all in the repair shop at the same time.
    I think I'd rather use a "bulky" camera with a full-frame sensor (or larger) so I can take advantage of the higher image quality and the superior high-ISO noise control.
    I think that the "same sized sensor" is only applicable to crop-format cameras (which I don't use or own).
    I think that cameras with smaller-than-full-frame sensors are seriously hampered by digital noise and by lens diffraction effects.
    I think that I'd prefer to stick with a system that provides dedicated macro lenses, dedicated perspective control (tilt/shift) lenses, dedicated wide-angle and fisheye lenses, and professional telephoto lenses.
    I think that it's not worth it for me to invest in a system that doesn't feature fast lenses (f/2.8 and faster for full frame, f/2 or faster for crop frame).
    I think that 4/3 cameras have extremely limited flash capability compared with most DSLR's (crop and full).
    I think I need a camera with a good supply of dedicated buttons and knobs so I can access many features very quickly.
    I think that after a decade of lugging medium and large-format cameras around that a full-frame DSLR isn't really "bulky" at all.
    I think that the people who need the best gear will buy and carry the best gear, and the rest of the population will snap their world with smart phones and other types of miniaturized cameras.
    Anyway, that's what I think.
     
  25. The problem with all these mirrorless camera designs that use 'larger' sensors such as APS and 4/tirds (as the Irish say) is that even with all the cutting edge technology mustered into making the smallest camera body possible as soon as you slap a lens on the front with an image circle to cover the sensor then it becomes not so small and convenient. You also lose TTL optical view. And if you want anything more than a prime you need to start carrying it in a bag with all the accessories that go with it. So the likes of the G11 and LX3 start to make alot of sense.
    Personally I want Canon to give us a camera the size of the T2i with FF and the knobs and build of the G10 and the rear QCD control dial of the 5D etc. This could be done with existing technology I'm sure.
     
  26. A camera you have with you and you enjoy using is the 'best' camera.
     
  27. Les, I must get one of those. Where did you get yours?
     
  28. Interesting thought on the new Sony NEX from DPreview:
    ..the ultra short registration distance of NX (2mm shorter than even Micro Four Thirds, despite the larger sensor size), which has allowed Sony to make the slimmest mirrorless cameras on the market. So why isn't Micro 4/3rds' registration distance at least as short or even shorter than NEX? For one very important reason: optical performance.
    Take a look at the optics tab of the NEX-5 review on Imaging Resource: at wide angle, only the very centre of the image is sharp. Across most of the frame (especially the corners of course), softness and chromatic aberration are appalling. Interestingly, one of the rationales of the original 4/3rds system was superior optical performance, by doing exactly the opposite of what Sony is doing with NEX: combining a relatively small sensor (by DSLR standards) with a relatively long registration distance (for the size of the sensor). As is borne out by the reviews of Olympus and Panasonic 4/3rds lenses, this has certainly proven to be the case, but the market is more concerned with noise performance (where larger sensors have an advantage) than optical quality it seems.
    Micro 4/3rds is to some degree a response by Olympus and Panasonic to what the market wants, by compromising 4/3rds' optical quality to give consumers the other thing they want in a camera: small size. However, Micro 4/3rds only seems to compromise the optics significantly in areas that can fairly easily be corrected in software (although personally I still prefer to have correct optical performance without software correction). NEX, however, is clearly way beyond that.
    But Sony is giving the market what they want: a big sensor in the smallest possible camera. Personally, I think this results in an absurdly unbalanced and awkward package when you stick a lens on it: the laws of physics still require an equivalent APS-C lens to be bigger than a 4/3rds lens, even if the former has a slightly shorter registration distance...
     
  29. "...the new 4/3 options out there. .."
    What does "4/3" mean other than a ratio of two numbers? Certainly not Canon EOS related, or if it is, please forgive me. If 4/3 represents a sensor smaller than the already small APS-C sensor, then, like the wise and inimitable Dan South, I have to ask why? But since this is the EOS forum, Dan gave all the correct answers already.
    Or, is Canon set to offer a 4/3 thing in their DSLR line this year? (I doubt it, but am open to correction) If you think an EOS 7D is bulky then SLRs aren't your bag.
     
  30. Ken and Dan 4/3 is the aspect ratio - the sensor has options but is 4x3 not the traditional 3x2 (although this is a 4/3 option). In terms of quality 4/3 is not that bad - don't take my word for it Amateur Photographer (the respect UK weekly magazine - published for 125 years) compared the G1 (Micro 4/3), Nikon D300 and Nikon D3. All of these cameras are 12 mega pixel and the G1 did (surprisingly) well - at low ISO in good light the image quality was evidently almost indistinguishable from the D3. Obviously DOF differed and at higher ISO or lower light the D3 killed the G1.
    Personally I bought the G1 to use top quality FD glass on a digital body and was very happy with the results. As an alternative to a Compact camera they make a lot of sense - especially the newr smaller models. As an alternative to a consumer DSLR they also make a lot of sense. Currently as I said earlier the lens range and performance of the camera do not make it an alternative to a mid level (e.g 7D) or higher DSLR.
    They are smaller - here is a shot of the kids old Rebel with a 35-70mm lens and the G1 with it's 14-45 (effective 28-90) kit lens.
    00WRpd-243632084.jpg
     
  31. Mirrorless is not limited to 4/3. You could also build a system based on APS-C or full frame sensors. And if there is a real advantage to have an electronic viewfinder this will happen and you will be able to purchase those cameras from all big camera makers including Canon. However, right now the situation is not that clear. Each system has its advantages and problems. Besides the size for me the optical viewfinder still has more advantages than disadvantages.
     
  32. Philip, I think that micro 4/3 defines more than just the aspect ratio. I have a (non-photographer) friend who uses a Sony point-and-shoot, and that camera also has a 4x3 aspect ratio. But it's not a "micro four-thirds" camera.
    I don't know the details of the micro 4/3 standards, but from observation I gather that they use no reflex mirror and no pentaprism. There's also no through-the-lens optical viewfinder. Instead, the user monitors a real-time, live-view feed from the sensor either on the LCD screen or optionally via an electronic viewfinder.
    I'm certain that these cameras give beautiful results in great light, but then so does my friend's point-and-shoot. But these cameras are far too limiting for my needs in all of the ways that I have detailed above and others such as autofocus options and performance. It's not that they're bad cameras. I would never suggest that. But the original poster asked why we should invest money on lenses for DSLRs and suggested that the DSLR design is bound for the scrap heap. I countered with all of the reasons why I believe that DSLRs are superior to minicams.
    If you own or are thinking about buying a DSLR because you want slightly better camera than the better point-and-shoots, a micro 4/3 camera might be a good option for you. But if you use half of the features of a DSLR, micro 4/3 is going to be very restrictive. It might be useful in some cases, but there will be other times when nothing less than a full-featured camera will do.
     
  33. Dan if you read my (much) earlier post you will see that I would not move exclusively to 4/3 - Indeed I still shoot film and MF bodies. My point was simply that for many people 4/3 may fill a need - either as a compact body that is better than something like a G11 (and the Micro 4/3 cameras are much better) or if they don't need all of the features of a full size DSLR. I personally own three Canon full size DSLRs (5DII, 7D and 1DIIN) plus 4 other EOS bodies (1Vs, 1NRS, 3) and have 6 L series lenses and 5 other EF mount lenses.
    The origin of the 4/3 system is an Olympus and Kodak standard that others have joined. Micro 4/3 was a spin off from that. Ken asked what does 4/3 mean and it is the aspect ratio of the sensor. In terms of the 4/3 organization and the open standards they have defined then there is obviously much more.
    Dan I would not compare m4/3 to a compact camera. They are much better than a compact camera - since they use the same sensor and processing technology as Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs. I personally find that the G1 outperforms the kid's old Rebel (300D) in every aspect and has as more features. While the G1 AF is contrast detection based it is much faster than the contrast detection system on my 7D (in live view) and performs at least as well as the phase detection system in the old Rebel.
    If you read my earlier post you will see that I agree with your main issue with m4/3 which is lens availability and the ability to use studio flash but I think you are too daming of a system that you have perhaps not used. There are very few features the body lacks and I wonder if you would care to list them as the bodies have most of the features that a more casual user would want.
    Compared to the 5DII the main feature differences are:
    Slower frame rate 3.9 vs 3 fps
    30 - 1/8000 vs 60 - 1/4000 shutter speed
    No external flash connection (beyond the hotshoe)
    1/200 vs 1/160 flash synch
    ISO 50 - 25600 vs ISO 100 - 3200
    Bracketing +/- 2EV 1/3 and 1/2 EV steps for 3 shots vs +/- 2EV in 1/3 or 2/3 EV steps for 3, 5 or 7 shots
    Video no video
    external flash only vs built in flash
    3" 921K pixel screen vs pivoted 3" 460K pixel screen
    In terms of the other features that are important - metering and exposure setting
    the two cameras are very similar. The G1 has an exposure setting called intelligent auto which in my experience produces better results than Canon's auto everything programs.
    I noticed that DXO mark scores the GH1 sensor slightly higher than the EOS 40D.
    And Popular photography scored it higher resolution and lower noise (at ISO 400 and below) thans the EOS 40D.
    While I understand it may not meet your needs if you shoot sports, low light or studio the cameras are not bad.
    While the lens problem is significant they work very well with old MF lenses although wide angle is a big issue as your lenses are 2x their focal length. If you are prepared to shoot in manual focus the EVF is great as you can zoom in twice while the camera is at your eye and get very sharp focus. Here is a shot from the G1 and a crop to show how detailed it can be.
    00WS0m-243725584.jpg
     
  34. Here is the Crop - note: both images are compressed as the Crop was 870 pixels wide and has been compressed to 700 wide and quality level 74%
    00WS0p-243725784.jpg
     
  35. Thanks guys. I think I will stick to my 40D and thinking of getting the 7D instead of the 550D because I want the HD movie capabilities. this is a discussion for another thread.
    BTW Paul, as I mentioned before, Sony has lost my attention a million years ago. In the sandbox of electronic corporations they play the reach, spoiled bully with a serious case of ADHD...-)
    Micha
     
  36. The 4/3 sensor is about 30% smaller than the Canon 1.6 crop sensor and about 75% smaller than full frame. Sensor size is a critical component of image quality.
     
  37. Dan I would not compare m4/3 to a compact camera. They are much better than a compact camera.​
    Agreed. They are better than compact cameras. I acknowledged this in my last post. Now instead of someone buying a bulky Rebel or D5000 to get better-than-compact performance they can buy a sleek, lightweight m4/3 camera. Of course, it's going to COST just as much as the Rebel/D5000, but it will be more portable and the picture quality should be equivalent given that the same calibre of lens is used.
    They use the same sensor and processing technology as Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs.​
    Gee, the next time I'm at a sporting event I'll have to take note of how many Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs are in use by the sideline pros. Oh, wait, I already know the answer. ZERO!
    While the G1 AF is contrast detection based it is much faster than the contrast detection system on my 7D (in live view) and performs at least as well as the phase detection system in the old Rebel.
    Great! I'm glad that the AF works for you. Does it have predictive autofocus like a D3/D700 or a 1DmkIV? That panda doesn't look as though he's moving very fast.
    If you read my earlier post you will see that I agree with your main issue with m4/3 which is lens availability and the ability to use studio flash​
    I'm glad that we agree. Those are big consideration in my opinion. Especially the LENSES.
    but I think you are too daming​
    Yes, I used to do quite a lot of "daming" but I have since settled down to one dame.
    of a system that you have perhaps not used.​
    With good reason. Please see above.
    There are very few features the body lacks and I wonder if you would care to list them​
    I believe that I already have listed them quite clearly.
    as the bodies have most of the features that a more casual user would want.​
    The casual user is not my concern. Most of them use iPhones these days. I use what I need. Are there times when a m4/3 camera would come in handy? Certainly! But why should I spend $$ on the body, a couple of lenses, and SD memory cards when I could, for instance, upgrade to a new 70-200 f/2.8 for about the same investment? I don't mind carrying a 5DII or a D700 around, and those bodies do what I need them to do. If I get a back injury maybe I'll jump onto the m4/3 bandwagon in order to save weight and bulk, but for now it makes absolutely no sense to do so.
    Enjoy your m4/3 cameras. I'm sure that they do what they can do quite nicely. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy my "bulky" cameras along with their fast lenses, their specialized lenses (e.g., macro and tilt/*X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*), their compatible extension tubes and filter systems, their multiple simultaneous flash heads, their ultra-high write speeds, their advanced autofocus and bracketing systems, etc.
     
  38. Dan - if you read my earlier post you would notice that I made most of the points you seem to be objecting too. My earlier post stated
    I have had a G1 for about 18 months and it is quite a good little camera. Can it replace my Canon DSLRs - NO and here is why
    1 AF is slow and useless for fast action e.g. sports
    2 Quality above ISO 400 is very poor
    3 Limited lens selection
    4 While the EVF is usable it cannot compare to an optical viewfinder for subtle work
    5 Feature set rather limited (flash / lighting support, frame rate, bracketing etc...)
    6 Build quality is OK but would not survive hard use
    7 Only way to get good bokeh and shallow DOF is with exotic glass (e.g. Canon FD 85 F1.2 at F1.2)
    8 Low light shooting (even at low ISO) produces rather poor, noisy images - I was informed this was due to the small sensor getting hot
    Unlike you I was trying to take a balanced view as opposed to a purely personal view. Personally I currently shoot with a 7D, 5DII and 1DIIN (all of which are rather bulky but two of which are great for sports). Prior to that the list includes 1V, 1NRS, 1N, T90 New F1 etc.... As for lenses I own and use lenses from the (Sigma) 8mm F3.5 fisheye through to the 300 F4 IS including the three f2.8 zooms and a TS lens. I also carry around cameras as large as the Fuji GX680 which makes a DSLR look like a toy.
    I am not sure why yopu appear to want to attack me personally for what I believe is a balanced assessment of this new type of camera body. You have not tried it so you cannot compare it to a 5D II or 1D body (since I own all three I can do this). These mirrorless bodies are a useful innovation (you will find them discussed a lot on the Canon FD and Olympus forums as a way to use old lenses) and I understand that mirrorless interchangable lens cameras have already reached over 10% market share in Japan. Thus there are probably here to stay. They clearly cannot replace a 1D with a 300 F2.8 for professional sports use but this is not what most users want. Canon has sold 40M EOS bodies but I suspect that only a small percentage were 1 series bodies. I bought the G1 to use these on a digital body.
    00WSF6-243863584.jpg
     
  39. I am not sure why yopu appear to want to attack me personally​
    Whoa, dude! I never "attacked" you or any other person. I never "attacked" m4/3 cameras for that matter; I just said that they didn't have all of the features of a DSLR, a point with which you seem to agree.
    Is you opinion on these cameras so vitally important to you that if someone disagrees with your conclusions, you interpret that as an attack on your person? It's just a freakin' camera; some people will love it and some will have no use for it. The fact that I have no use for one should not be an affront to you or any other m4/3 user. I don't use Microsoft Windows PC's, either. It doesn't mean that they're bad or that there's something wrong with the people who use them. Different people have different preferences. That's all.
     
  40. Statements like these appear to be taking a derogatory and condescending tone
    Gee, the next time I'm at a sporting event I'll have to take note of how many Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs are in use by the sideline pros
    Great! I'm glad that the AF works for you
    Enjoy your m4/3 cameras. I'm sure that they do what they can do quite nicely. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy my "bulky" cameras along with their fast lenses, their specialized lenses
    I spent 30 days on the Whistler ski courses for the Olympics in February (actually on the course) and thus I may have some idea about shooting sports
    If you had ready my posts you will see that I was aware of the M4/3 AF and pointed them out before you did (having used the camera helps in assessing it's AF!)
    I suspect I have a collection of bulky cameras that more than rival yours (Including five 1 series bodies, 3 fuji GX680 bodies and two Mamiya MF bodies) I also own over 40 lenses from 8mm to 400mm.
    Your response would suggest that you did not mean to give offense but even here the tone is derogatory.
     

Share This Page

1111