Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Someone tested Canon's kit lens

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556...

Verdict
"In lens land there's no such thing as a free lunch and the EF-S
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II is an example for that. Under controlled
condition - medium aperture settings that is - the lens can provide
very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual users (who
are the target group anyway). However, large aperture settings should
be generally avoided due to quite pronounced vignetting (@18mm) and
poor to average edge performance. Distortions are very high at the
wide-end but no issue at the tele end. The construction quality is
soso at best.

That said in its price range there're few alternatives in Canon EOS
mount and they probably aren't better either. However, serious users
looking for a good quality lens should save a little more and look
elsewhere."

VERSUS Olympus's:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1445_35...

Verdict
Regarding its price tag the Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 is a very good
deal with a good build quality combined with a very decent optical
performance. The most pronounced weaknesses are very strong barrel
distortions at 14mm and some chromatic aberrations at 14mm @ f/3.5
(easily correctable via tools).

Remember that the depth-of-field is very high with such a lens -
isolating objects by choosing a large aperture setting is quite
hopeless except with close-ups. This is a point where Olympus'
prosumer variant - the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is more usable. If you just
want a light-weight walk-around lens the 14-45mm lens should be more
than good enough. It's quite strange that this lens sells for the
price of a few Coke bottles at eBay - it certainly deserves better!

More about : tested canon kit lens

Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA once again proves he is a shithead:

> [Canon EFS 18-55/3.5-5.6] isn't as good as the [Olympus 14-45/3.5-5.6]

And www.bhphotovideo.com says ...

Canon = $140
Olympus = $250

So Mr. Anderson has proven the forehead smacking revelation that more
money == better quality. Who would have thought?
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:10:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 3 Aug 2005 18:37:51 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA once again proves he is a shithead:
>
>> [Canon EFS 18-55/3.5-5.6] isn't as good as the [Olympus 14-45/3.5-5.6]
>
>And www.bhphotovideo.com says ...
>
> Canon = $140
>Olympus = $250
>
>So Mr. Anderson has proven the forehead smacking revelation that more
>money == better quality. Who would have thought?

Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon.
Next.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...
-Rich
Related resources
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <61u2f19vk6vvqpb6l3kmliali5ipell835@4ax.com>, RichA
<none@none.com> wrote:

> Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon.
> Next.

Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and
put 'em where the sun don't shine?
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:38:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ldmm4F11urbfU3@individual.net...

>
>>The big difference is that with Canon
>> you have a very wide selection of very good lenses, with Olympus you
>> don't.
>
> Actually with Canon the selection of "very good lenses" isn't much deeper
> than what olympus has, they just make a bunch more cheap consumer zooms.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Does Oly have a 28-135 IS, 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, 500 f4
IS, 600 f4 IS, 50mm f1.4, ANY tilt and shift or perspective control lens,
85mm f1.2, 85mm f1.8, 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, not to mention a bunch of
consumer lenses that are quite good, like the 100 f2, 28-105 f3.5-4.5, and
many others. And then there's the aftermarket mfrs, who support Canon a lot
more than they do Oly.
Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon
100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else.
B&H lists 6 pages of Canon lenses, 1 page of Oly lenses.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 6:21:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:37:14 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <61u2f19vk6vvqpb6l3kmliali5ipell835@4ax.com>, RichA
><none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon.
>> Next.
>
>Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and
>put 'em where the sun don't shine?

So a doggy $100 lens from Sigma is "cheap-o" while mentioning that
Canon has a similar lens is "Canon-bashing?" My, my, we aren't too
biased are we?
-Rich
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:09:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

>>RichA once again proves he is a shithead:
>>
>>> [Canon EFS 18-55/3.5-5.6] isn't as good as the [Olympus 14-45/3.5-5.6]
>>
>>And www.bhphotovideo.com says ...
>>
>> Canon = $140
>>Olympus = $250
>>
>>So Mr. Anderson has proven the forehead smacking revelation that more
>>money == better quality. Who would have thought?
>
>Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon.
>Next.

Napakatanga mo talaga. Where you talking about the Olympus or the
Sigma?

> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

Ohhh, now that's an unbiased source.

So we have: one lie by omission, one diversion, and one non sequitur.
Still batting a solid 1.0, Mr. Anderson. If faulty arguments were
baseballs, you'd be famous. But they aren't, so you are still just a
shithead...
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:04:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
> In article <61u2f19vk6vvqpb6l3kmliali5ipell835@4ax.com>, RichA
> <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> > Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon.
> > Next.
>
> Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and
> put 'em where the sun don't shine?

Can't do that - he won't be able to talk clearly.

Colin D.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:05:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 4 Aug 2005 12:09:16 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>>>RichA once again proves he is a shithead:
>>>
>>>> [Canon EFS 18-55/3.5-5.6] isn't as good as the [Olympus 14-45/3.5-5.6]
>>>
>>>And www.bhphotovideo.com says ...
>>>
>>> Canon = $140
>>>Olympus = $250
>>>
>>>So Mr. Anderson has proven the forehead smacking revelation that more
>>>money == better quality. Who would have thought?
>>
>>Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon.
>>Next.
>
>Napakatanga mo talaga. Where you talking about the Olympus or the
>Sigma?
>
>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...
>
>Ohhh, now that's an unbiased source.
>
>So we have: one lie by omission, one diversion, and one non sequitur.
>Still batting a solid 1.0, Mr. Anderson. If faulty arguments were
>baseballs, you'd be famous. But they aren't, so you are still just a
>shithead...

Spoken like another Canon "head in the sand" loser.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:45:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11f55ftr19cc7e7@corp.supernews.com>, G.T.
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic? Notice the
> materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice
> that plastic is just another strong material to build things out of?
>
> Again, I've landed on my Rebel XT inside a lightly padded backpack during a
> mtn bike crash and it didn't explode. And it seems to be working fine.

The plastics used in the manufacture of these cameras is far different
from the plastic used to make the cheap toys you buy at Wally World.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:11:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?

Notice the $500+ price difference?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:14:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <040820051845168000%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> In article <11f55ftr19cc7e7@corp.supernews.com>, G.T.
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic? Notice the
> > materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice
> > that plastic is just another strong material to build things out of?
> >
> > Again, I've landed on my Rebel XT inside a lightly padded backpack during a
> > mtn bike crash and it didn't explode. And it seems to be working fine.
>
> The plastics used in the manufacture of these cameras is far different
> from the plastic used to make the cheap toys you buy at Wally World.

Well, if you know anything about polycarbonate, it is a super durable
material and certainly more impact resistant than magnesium alloys.

Rigid, it ain't - but that's part of the reason it's so durable.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:28:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1123207510.941831.29650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
wiltw@aol.com says...
> 43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8

That sounds like a fun lens. I take it was a full fisheye?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:27:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:4227f1h0kkvq1aobthditas94ce4ok5snf@4ax.com...
> On Thv, 4 Avg 2005 15:26:01 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> >news:4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 3 Avg 2005 23:43:51 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:fvc3f151og2mrqpoe5nm8vv0m4c66eie7n@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 03 Avg 2005 21:06:08 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
> >> >> <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <42F185B6.159F91E8@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
> >> >> ><ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why don't yov take yovr Canon-bashing along with yovr cheap-o
> >Sigma
> >> >and
> >> >> >> > pvt 'em where the svn don't shine?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can't do that - he won't be able to talk clearly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's all we hear from the gvy is his Canon-bashing. Even thovgh I
own
> >a
> >> >> >Canon, I think Nikon and others make perfectly good eqvipment.
Sigma
> >is
> >> >> >not high on my list, bvt I'm certainly not a Canon svck-vp. Even
> >thovgh
> >> >> >I don't vse them any more, I'm a die-hard Hasselblad freak.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only Canon's I've bashed are the kit lens for it's performance
and
> >> >> the Rebel XT for it's BUILD qvality. 2 variables ovt of thovsands
> >> >> when it comes to Canon eqvipment. It's time for yov to learn some
> >> >> basic statistics, I'd say.
> >> >
> >> >Damn, I wonder why my XT hasn't yet exploded into a million tiny
plastic
> >> >pieces. It sovnds like it's a disaster waiting to happen.
> >> >
> >> >Greg
> >> >
> >>
> >> Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?
> >
> >Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic?
>
> Like? Please don't say X-Box. Plastic is vsed in some consvmer
> electronics to keep weight down, and cost. No high end avdio gear is
> plastic that I know of. All TVs are becavse of the prohibitive cost
> of shipping them from the Far East.
>
> Notice the
> >materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice
> >that plastic is jvst another strong material to bvild things ovt of?
> >
> >Again, I've landed on my Rebel XT inside a lightly padded backpack dvring
a
> >mtn bike crash and it didn't explode. And it seems to be working fine.
> >
> >Greg
> >
>
> That's good. Maybe the aversion to plastic is vnwarranted. Bvt what
> is yovr movntain bike made off? My gvess, alvminvm or chromoly steel,
> maybe titanivm.

I owned a plastic bicycle, a GT STS, bvt it was stolen. And generally the
only part that broke on that model was the alvminvm trvnion movnt for the
rear shock.

Greg
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:43:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:11:44 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?
>
>Notice the $500+ price difference?

Sure, but if polycarbonate is so great, saves on weight, why
don't they use it in the top end?
-Rich
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:43:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:q827f1tf9uotnf30mjinvnbjr6ovndaj4o@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:11:44 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>
> >In article <4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com>, none@none.com
> >says...
> >> Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?
> >
> >Notice the $500+ price difference?
>
> Sure, but if polycarbonate is so great, saves on weight, why
> don't they use it in the top end?

Marketing.

Greg
August 5, 2005 5:52:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <1123207510.941831.29650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> wiltw@aol.com says...
>
>>43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8
>
>
> That sounds like a fun lens. I take it was a full fisheye?

yep!

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:52:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42f2e287$0$21701$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
zog@hotmail.com says...
> Brian Baird wrote:
> > In article <1123207510.941831.29650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > wiltw@aol.com says...
> >
> >>43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8
> >
> >
> > That sounds like a fun lens. I take it was a full fisheye?
>
> yep!
>
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics...

Very cool.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:09:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1e27f1hcaa4d19t5ajf35feghpl05i297d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:31:29 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit
>>of
>>mis-stating things when it comes to Canon equipment. She claims that
>>Oly's
>>lens selection, when you get past the Canon low level consumer stuff, is
>>just as deep, and I wanted her to tell me what lenses were the equivalents
>>of the Canon lenses. That's all. The E-1 was being marketed as a pro
>>level
>>camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't the
>>depth
>>of lens line to support pro pretentions. There, now, is just barely.
>>Like you said, Oly used to have some remarkable lenses, and they do still
>>have remarkable optics, by reputation, among the best going, if not the
>>best.
>
> Olympus's intentions were there. They wanted to produce digitals with
> lenses especially made for them. They didn't want less than suitable
> (as Canon and Nikon and the others offer) SLR lenses used on the
> digitals. It's now apparent that this was the right decision, since
> Canon and Nikon are finally following suit, but Olympus probably
> should have kept their OM line as they introduced more and more pure
> digital lenses, then phased them out on equal terms. However, in a
> sop to the hurt feelings of OM users, they did issue an adapter that
> allows the old OM lenses to be used on the digital SLRs. They even
> gave it away for free in beginning. I can't blame Olympus for wanting
> to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor.
> -Rich

Repeat after me:
"The road to hell is paved with---" <G> But "less than suitable" is not a
good phrase for that. The main thing with the EF-S lenses seems to be ease
of manufacturing, the 24-70, for instance, works as well, or better, on
digital bodies as it ever did on film bodies.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:50:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

G.T. wrote:
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:q827f1tf9uotnf30mjinvnbjr6ovndaj4o@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:11:44 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>>>says...
>>>
>>>>Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?
>>>
>>>Notice the $500+ price difference?
>>
>>Sure, but if polycarbonate is so great, saves on weight, why
>>don't they use it in the top end?
>
>
> Marketing.

This is very true. It's amusing to read reviews that will say that a
camera is well-built, but that it feels cheaply built. Well that's
exactly right, we associate the weight and feel of certain plastics with
"cheap" and the feel of certain metals as not cheap.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:41:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <q827f1tf9uotnf30mjinvnbjr6ovndaj4o@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >Notice the $500+ price difference?
>
> Sure, but if polycarbonate is so great, saves on weight, why
> don't they use it in the top end?

Simple answer:

People are stupid. Customers will pay more for something they PERCEIVE
to be better. After a while, they get accustomed to this perception,
and will actually bitch if a product doesn't meet their idea of
"quality."
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <q827f1tf9uotnf30mjinvnbjr6ovndaj4o@4ax.com>, none@none.com
> says...
>
>>>Notice the $500+ price difference?
>>
>>Sure, but if polycarbonate is so great, saves on weight, why
>>don't they use it in the top end?
>
>
> Simple answer:
>
> People are stupid.

Some are and some are not.

Competition is great within the photo industry yet designers still use
cast metal alloys in top end camera bodies. It would be simple to change
to polycarbonate and in advertising, extol the advantages of using
polycarbonate, but that isn't being done. Therefore, I don't believe the
reason it's not being done relates to a marketing problem.

The people who buy high end camera equipment are either pro's who need
the equipment or people who enjoy photography as a hobby. High end
equipment is costly, so, we can generally assume those that buy high end
cameras have the financial means to buy the equipment. Having
intellectual ability to gain the financial means to indulge or cater to
their interests doesn't appear to equate to their being stupid.

Camera companies constantly canvass photo pro's for ideas/functions to
incorporate in new model cameras. It would be a simple matter to conduct
an inquiry into preferences for camera bodies to be polycarbonate or
cast metal alloy. Unless there's a thought that photo pro's are
generally stupid and unable to understand the differences, pro cameras
are still being made with cast metal alloy bodies.

Consider polycarbonate (poly meaning 'many') to be a generic term for a
family of carbonate compounds, since some folks in this group appear to
be well informed concerning various carbonate properties, which
thermoplastic carbonate compound would be the best selection for a
camera body (not all carbonate is UV or solvent resistant)? How thick
would the knowledgeable folks in this group make a carbonate camera
body? Should metal inserts be used where screws are required? How would
the knowledgeable folks in this group know if Nikon, Canon, Olympus, et
al. used the best of carbonate compounds to make their high end camera
bodies?

My guess is, many of these questions (and more) can't be adequately
addressed by group members and would defer such decisions to camera
companies. So, in that respect, consider camera companies having made
the proper selection for materials to use in high end camera bodies.
Presently, high end camera bodies are composed of cast metal alloys.


> Customers will pay more for something they PERCEIVE
> to be better. After a while, they get accustomed to this perception,
> and will actually bitch if a product doesn't meet their idea of
> "quality."

An aside:

A C-Net poll (Being C-Net, it would be world wide) produced the
following public opinions:

Question: "Which company makes the best digital cameras?"

Results:

Canon 27%
Olympus 14%
Nikon 13%
Sony 12%
Kodak 8%
Fujifilm 7%
Konica Minolta 6%
HP 5%
Pentax 4%
Casio 4%

Considering the question being asked uses the term "best," would it be
too much to assume that according to public opinion Canon makes the best
'quality' digital cameras? If that is agreeable, then wouldn't it be
logical to assume, according to public opinion, the public trusts camera
designers to know what's needed to make quality digital cameras as they
design-to-cost-to-function? If camera designers decided to use carbonate
materials for all camera bodies, would you tend to think the 'trust'
would somehow disappear?
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1e27f1hcaa4d19t5ajf35feghpl05i297d@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> I can't blame Olympus for wanting
> to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor.

Doing what correctly?

The 4/3rds idea is so flawed I can't even begin to describe how unneeded
it was.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:47:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>
>
> Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit of
> mis-stating things when it comes to Canon equipment. She claims that Oly's
> lens selection, when you get past the Canon low level consumer stuff, is
> just as deep, and I wanted her to tell me what lenses were the equivalents
> of the Canon lenses. That's all. The E-1 was being marketed as a pro level
> camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't the depth
> of lens line to support pro pretentions. There, now, is just barely.
> Like you said, Oly used to have some remarkable lenses, and they do still
> have remarkable optics, by reputation, among the best going, if not the
> best.
>
How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series
range of lenses, Skip?

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42f3199e@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, pixby_douglas@hotmail.com
says...
> How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series
> range of lenses, Skip?

How is this valid in the least?

Damn you've turned into a crackpot, Doug.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42f3199e@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit
>> of mis-stating things when it comes to Canon equipment. She claims that
>> Oly's lens selection, when you get past the Canon low level consumer
>> stuff, is just as deep, and I wanted her to tell me what lenses were the
>> equivalents of the Canon lenses. That's all. The E-1 was being marketed
>> as a pro level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there
>> wasn't the depth of lens line to support pro pretentions. There, now, is
>> just barely.
>> Like you said, Oly used to have some remarkable lenses, and they do still
>> have remarkable optics, by reputation, among the best going, if not the
>> best.
>>
> How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series
> range of lenses, Skip?
>
> --
> Douglas,
> Zero care factor for negative responses
> from anonymous posters.

Doesn't matter, those lenses are available to those who need them. And I
can rent pretty much any "L" lens, if I need to. An Oly shooter doesn't
have as many options.
But that wasn't the point, the point was Stacey's continuing misinformation
campaign about Canon, saying that once you get past the cheap consumer
lenses, the two lens lines are similar.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:31:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:28:15 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:q827f1tf9uotnf30mjinvnbjr6ovndaj4o@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:11:44 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>> >says...
>> >> Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?
>> >
>> >Notice the $500+ price difference?
>>
>> Sure, but if polycarbonate is so great, saves on weight, why
>> don't they use it in the top end?
>
>Marketing.
>
>Greg
>

Why would they spend their efforts marketing a material that costs
them far more to manufacture? This completely goes against what
happened in the 1980s when so many low and mid level SLRs turned into
plastic.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:38:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:42:37 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <1e27f1hcaa4d19t5ajf35feghpl05i297d@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> I can't blame Olympus for wanting
>> to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor.
>
>Doing what correctly?
>
>The 4/3rds idea is so flawed I can't even begin to describe how unneeded
>it was.

Well, if 4/3rds has locked them into a situation where they simply
can't make sensors that can compete on certain levels with others,
that is true. I was referring to them implementing digital only
lenses.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:41:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Avg 2005 09:27:55 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:4227f1h0kkvq1aobthditas94ce4ok5snf@4ax.com...
>> On Thv, 4 Avg 2005 15:26:01 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4645f1lnnkb1hprmeqmmnla5g1er2t1sll@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 3 Avg 2005 23:43:51 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:fvc3f151og2mrqpoe5nm8vv0m4c66eie7n@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 03 Avg 2005 21:06:08 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
>> >> >> <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <42F185B6.159F91E8@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
>> >> >> ><ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Why don't yov take yovr Canon-bashing along with yovr cheap-o
>> >Sigma
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >> > pvt 'em where the svn don't shine?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Can't do that - he won't be able to talk clearly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's all we hear from the gvy is his Canon-bashing. Even thovgh I
>own
>> >a
>> >> >> >Canon, I think Nikon and others make perfectly good eqvipment.
>Sigma
>> >is
>> >> >> >not high on my list, bvt I'm certainly not a Canon svck-vp. Even
>> >thovgh
>> >> >> >I don't vse them any more, I'm a die-hard Hasselblad freak.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The only Canon's I've bashed are the kit lens for it's performance
>and
>> >> >> the Rebel XT for it's BUILD qvality. 2 variables ovt of thovsands
>> >> >> when it comes to Canon eqvipment. It's time for yov to learn some
>> >> >> basic statistics, I'd say.
>> >> >
>> >> >Damn, I wonder why my XT hasn't yet exploded into a million tiny
>plastic
>> >> >pieces. It sovnds like it's a disaster waiting to happen.
>> >> >
>> >> >Greg
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic?
>> >
>> >Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic?
>>
>> Like? Please don't say X-Box. Plastic is vsed in some consvmer
>> electronics to keep weight down, and cost. No high end avdio gear is
>> plastic that I know of. All TVs are becavse of the prohibitive cost
>> of shipping them from the Far East.
>>
>> Notice the
>> >materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice
>> >that plastic is jvst another strong material to bvild things ovt of?
>> >
>> >Again, I've landed on my Rebel XT inside a lightly padded backpack dvring
>a
>> >mtn bike crash and it didn't explode. And it seems to be working fine.
>> >
>> >Greg
>> >
>>
>> That's good. Maybe the aversion to plastic is vnwarranted. Bvt what
>> is yovr movntain bike made off? My gvess, alvminvm or chromoly steel,
>> maybe titanivm.
>
>I owned a plastic bicycle, a GT STS, bvt it was stolen. And generally the
>only part that broke on that model was the alvminvm trvnion movnt for the
>rear shock.
>
>Greg
>

The fittings on that frame are metal, maybe they shovld have made them
of plastic? :) 
-Rich
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:41:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:2q88f1lle9bcqg7qh372vq4rggj21otb7j@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:27:55 -0700, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> The fittings on that frame are metal, maybe they should have made them
> of plastic? :) 
> -Rich

Might not have been a bad idea, matching the flex of the frame better.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 4:42:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <yv6dnZ2dnZ26Mv__nZ2dnZFFbt-dnZ2dRVn-0Z2dnZ0@comcast.com>, n-
chen@comcast.net says...
> Some are and some are not.
>
> Competition is great within the photo industry yet designers still use
> cast metal alloys in top end camera bodies. It would be simple to change
> to polycarbonate and in advertising, extol the advantages of using
> polycarbonate, but that isn't being done. Therefore, I don't believe the
> reason it's not being done relates to a marketing problem.

To change perception you have to spend a LOT of money... and you're not
always guaranteed to succeed. See: 4/3rds.

> The people who buy high end camera equipment are either pro's who need
> the equipment or people who enjoy photography as a hobby. High end
> equipment is costly, so, we can generally assume those that buy high end
> cameras have the financial means to buy the equipment. Having
> intellectual ability to gain the financial means to indulge or cater to
> their interests doesn't appear to equate to their being stupid.

I don't expect people to understand the performance of impact resistant
plastics versus metal alloys. Most people don't understand which metals
are suited to which task. People really don't understand material
suitability at at all - it isn't they specialty.

> Camera companies constantly canvass photo pro's for ideas/functions to
> incorporate in new model cameras. It would be a simple matter to conduct
> an inquiry into preferences for camera bodies to be polycarbonate or
> cast metal alloy. Unless there's a thought that photo pro's are
> generally stupid and unable to understand the differences, pro cameras
> are still being made with cast metal alloy bodies.

Photo pros typically do not have the experience or training to make such
a decision. "Metal's tougher" might be a common sentiment of these
otherwise bright individuals, but it doesn't make the statement any less
stupid.

> Consider polycarbonate (poly meaning 'many') to be a generic term for a
> family of carbonate compounds, since some folks in this group appear to
> be well informed concerning various carbonate properties, which
> thermoplastic carbonate compound would be the best selection for a
> camera body (not all carbonate is UV or solvent resistant)? How thick
> would the knowledgeable folks in this group make a carbonate camera
> body? Should metal inserts be used where screws are required? How would
> the knowledgeable folks in this group know if Nikon, Canon, Olympus, et
> al. used the best of carbonate compounds to make their high end camera
> bodies?

Polycarbonate is not as generic as you make it out to be. The "poly"
indeed does mean many, but in this case refers to the number of
carbonate chains in the molecule, not the number of carbonate compounds
available. Carbonate compounds by themselves do not make a plastic
polymer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate

UV stabilization is not achieved by using different polymers, instead
compounds are added to protect and stabilize the polycarbonate from UV
light.

Given that none of the mainstream cameras today "shatters" in one's
hands, I think we can assume the engineers, who are trained specifically
in this sort of thing, have made the right design decisions.

> My guess is, many of these questions (and more) can't be adequately
> addressed by group members and would defer such decisions to camera
> companies. So, in that respect, consider camera companies having made
> the proper selection for materials to use in high end camera bodies.
> Presently, high end camera bodies are composed of cast metal alloys.

Yeah... no.

Polycarbonates as a group have a higher impact resistance than magnesium
alloys as a group. Magnesium alloys are more rigid, but rigid isn't
always good - especially when you're discussing shearing due to impact
stress.

I'd say that in terms of impact resistance, both the consumer grade and
"prosumer" and "pro" grade cameras have probably the same odds of
getting damaged from falls, impact, etc. Again, in cameras it really
isn't the exterior you concerned with; it's the delicate, high-precision
internal parts you don't want damaged. So to that end, magnesium alloys
don't offer any additional protection.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 6, 2005 4:47:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> The E-1 was being marketed as a pro
> level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't
> the depth
> of lens line to support pro pretentions.

So when the EOS line was introduced, how deep was the lens line?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 4:47:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3litmlF12oa6gU2@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> The E-1 was being marketed as a pro
>> level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't
>> the depth
>> of lens line to support pro pretentions.
>
> So when the EOS line was introduced, how deep was the lens line?
>
> --
>
> Stacey

As far as I can tell, in '87, there were about 10 lenses available, and
some of them were less than stellar. So, I guess the answer is not very,
but how long has the E-1 been out? And I'm referring to what is, as you
were, not what may, or will, be. The other part of that equation is that
there were darn few AF cameras available with pro pretensions, there is a
plethora of digital SLRs out there with pro marketing, if not specs. So,
Oly had a harder row to hoe when marketing the E-1 as a pro camera than
Canon did in '87.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 6, 2005 4:54:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon
> 100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else.
>

Yea the 7-14 and the 11-22 are pretty useless as is the 150 f2. The
usefulness of the lenses you posted depend on the camera body you plan to
use them on. You seem to be really obcessed with IS, maybe you should just
lay off the coffee? :-)

Who cares if there are 6 pages of canon mount lenses if many are of low
optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing
consumer zooms, there aren't many left.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 4:54:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3liu4iF12oa6gU3@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon
>> 100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else.
>>
>
> Yea the 7-14 and the 11-22 are pretty useless as is the 150 f2. The
> usefulness of the lenses you posted depend on the camera body you plan to
> use them on. You seem to be really obcessed with IS, maybe you should just
> lay off the coffee? :-)
>
> Who cares if there are 6 pages of canon mount lenses if many are of low
> optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing
> consumer zooms, there aren't many left.
> --
>
> Stacey

Throw out the bottom feeders, and there are still more than twice as many
lenses available from Canon than there are from Oly.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 7:25:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:42:20 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what is your mountain
>bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel,maybe titanium.

That's because nothing, outside of ridiculously expensive composite
materials, does the job as well. A frame material is required to be
strong, rigid (for mechanical efficiency), sufficiently elasticity to
absorb potentially damaging vibration, and light of weight. It also
has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' when tapped
with an admiring finger. :-)

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 7:25:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Bremner wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:42:20 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what is your
>> mountain bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel,maybe
>> titanium.
>
> That's because nothing, outside of ridiculously expensive composite
> materials, does the job as well. A frame material is required to be
> strong, rigid (for mechanical efficiency), sufficiently elasticity
> to
> absorb potentially damaging vibration, and light of weight. It also
> has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' when tapped
> with an admiring finger. :-)
>

Goed ear, Al.

I reckon another engineering and sensual aspect is heat transfer: when
you have your hands on a cool metal implement, you know it is serious
business. I suppose an ancillary benefit is that there is some
advantage in actual physical cooling; presumably a bigger, faster gun
requires more surface and greater heat conductivity to rid itself of
the potentially damaging calories generated in battle.

I know from experience that my little Minolta Dimmidge Xt used to get
hot well beyond comfort when shooting a long series of model (car)
photos at the rate of one every three or four seconds.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 7:56:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> That's good. Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what
> is your mountain bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel,
> maybe titanium.

Another dopey analogy.

The structure of a bicycle is much different than that of a camera.

Bicycle manufacturers moved to aluminum alloys from Chro-Moly steel
because of cost. It is much more cost effective to build a lightweight
aluminum bicycle than a lightweight steel bicycle. However aluminum has
some undesirable characteristics. It is weaker, and more brittle than
steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter
and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes,
aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles. Aluminum fatigues
after less stress cycles than does steel; this is not an issue for the
casual rider, but it is an issue for the enthusiast that expects to keep
the same bicycle for a decade or more
August 6, 2005 7:56:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

SMS wrote:

> It is weaker, and more brittle than
> steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter
> and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes,
> aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles.

Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother ride?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 7:56:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3liucuF12oa6gU5@individual.net...
> SMS wrote:
>
> > It is weaker, and more brittle than
> > steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter
> > and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes,
> > aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles.
>
> Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother
ride?

Where did he say that?

Greg
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:09:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Skip M wrote:
>
>
>>The E-1 was being marketed as a pro
>>level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't
>>the depth
>>of lens line to support pro pretentions.
>
>
> So when the EOS line was introduced, how deep was the lens line?
>

Around 25 lenses, from 17mm to 600mm. These were the Canon lenses. There
were Sigma lenses soon after the EOS system was introduced. And of
course you could still use the many of the the FD mount lenses with the
professional adapter.

It's safe to say that Canon did not rush the EOS system to market
without a full complement of lenses. To do so would have been
catastrophic (i.e. see Olympus E-1).
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 8:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11f8jssdh5insbe@corp.supernews.com>, getnews1@dslextreme.com
says...
> > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother
> ride?
>
> Where did he say that?
>
> Greg

This is typical Stacey bullshit. Take something someone says out of
context, make a ridiculous statement that requires a corrective
response, change subject again, cry foul. Wash, rinse, repeat.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 8:59:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5e1a4968636e7f9897a4@news.verizon.net...
> In article <11f8jssdh5insbe@corp.supernews.com>, getnews1@dslextreme.com
> says...
> > > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother
> > ride?
> >
> > Where did he say that?
> >
> > Greg
>
> This is typical Stacey bullshit.

Yep, always looking to start a fight.

Greg
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:07:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <42f3199e@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, pixby_douglas@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>>How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series
>>range of lenses, Skip?
>
>
> How is this valid in the least?
>
> Damn you've turned into a crackpot, Doug.

I've always been a crackpot, Brian.
Skip was rambling on about the huge lineup of Canon lenses compared to
very useful but smaller lineup of Olympus lenses. The thought occurred
to me that not a lot of people would own all of the canon range...
What's so odd about that?

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:12:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Skip M wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon
>>100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else.
>>
>
>
> Yea the 7-14 and the 11-22 are pretty useless as is the 150 f2. The
> usefulness of the lenses you posted depend on the camera body you plan to
> use them on. You seem to be really obcessed with IS, maybe you should just
> lay off the coffee? :-)
>
> Who cares if there are 6 pages of canon mount lenses if many are of low
> optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing
> consumer zooms, there aren't many left.

Jeezus Stacey,
If you did that with Oly, you'd only have 3 lenses left.

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:25:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3liu4iF12oa6gU3@individual.net...
>
>>Skip M wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon
>>>100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else.
>>>
>>
>>Yea the 7-14 and the 11-22 are pretty useless as is the 150 f2. The
>>usefulness of the lenses you posted depend on the camera body you plan to
>>use them on. You seem to be really obcessed with IS, maybe you should just
>>lay off the coffee? :-)
>>
>>Who cares if there are 6 pages of canon mount lenses if many are of low
>>optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing
>>consumer zooms, there aren't many left.
>>--
>>
>> Stacey
>
>
> Throw out the bottom feeders, and there are still more than twice as many
> lenses available from Canon than there are from Oly.

Actually more than eight times as many.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pixby wrote:

> How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series
> range of lenses, Skip?

What a dopey question. Probably none of them own every L lens. But they
own some, and if necessary they can rent the ones that they need only
occasionally.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:28:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
>>It is weaker, and more brittle than
>>steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter
>>and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes,
>>aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles.
>
>
> Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother ride?

Huh, where did I ever say that? You're losing your mind.
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 10:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42f461e7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>> In article <42f3199e@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, pixby_douglas@hotmail.com
>> says...
>>
>>>How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series
>>>range of lenses, Skip?
>>
>>
>> How is this valid in the least?
>>
>> Damn you've turned into a crackpot, Doug.
>
> I've always been a crackpot, Brian.
> Skip was rambling on about the huge lineup of Canon lenses compared to
> very useful but smaller lineup of Olympus lenses. The thought occurred to
> me that not a lot of people would own all of the canon range... What's so
> odd about that?
>
> --
> Douglas,
> You never really make it on the 'net
> until you get your own personal Troll.
> Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

I wasn't exactly rambling on, I was asking Stacey what lenses were available
in Oly's line that matched up with those lenses, since she made the
statement that, "Actually with Canon the selection of "very good lenses"
isn't much deeper than what Olympus has, they just make a bunch more cheap
consumer zooms." There about 4 lenses that Oly makes that Canon doesn't
have an equivalent for on a 1.6x camera.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 6, 2005 11:25:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I tested mine. It does what I need it to do. If I need a lens to do
something different, I use a different lens.
!