>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253647 >what shortcomings are you people talking about? The lack of a full-frame upgrade path option, as you mentioned, is the big one for me. And the fact that, at a given technology level, at a given resolution, the 4/3 camera's always going to be a bit noisier than an APS-C camera.
I will grant you that neither are *huge* issues, but what advantages does regular 4/3 come with to make up for them? They're a little bit smaller and a little bit lighter, but as a previous poster said, they're still big enough that you're going to have to carry it around in a camera bag rather than sticking it in your pocket. It's not brandfaggotry, it's just that a 4/3 SLR offers no real advantages and a few real, if slight, disadvantages over Canon and Nikon.
I mean, look at your post. It wasn't pointing out any advantages to 4/3, it was just saying "I don't know what you're talking about, the problems aren't *that* big". That is not what we call a ringing endorsement.
And your E510 feels better than a rebel to you because you're used to it. When I pick up a Nikon--who are widely regarded as having the best ergonomics in the business--I tend to think "Wow, this isn't nearly as comfortable to use as my Rebel was". So check your own personal biases before throwing accusations at us.
u4/3 changes all this. u4/3 is a compelling system because it actually tries to be a different thing than Canon and Nikon do rather than just trying to be Canon and Nikon but less good.
|