>> |
Anonymous
>>145422 >True, but by your own admission, the Four Thirds cameras aren't any *better* photographically This depends a lot on the exact combinations of cameras and lenses we're comparing. For example, my most often used kit is this E-510 body with a 14-54/2.8-3.5 standard zoom, which now costs around $900 new. Canon has nothing comparable for this price - you either get a body with the dark 18-55IS for 50% less or a body with the excellent, but expensive 17-55IS for 50% more.
>Tiny crappy viewfinders cost them a lot of "Ergonomics" points (especially with the specific model he's looking at) Actually, the E-3xx series have the largest viewfinders of all low-end Four Thirds SLRs, comparable to Rebel XT/XTi's in size (narrower and taller because of different aspect ratio). They are darker, though, but that's significant only in very low light.
>unavailability of lenses In the US, there are no problems with native lenses thanks to B&H. And thanks to the relative unpopularity of the system, you can find crazy good deals on the used market if you have a bit of patience.
>They wouldn't be for me, but I'm a richfag. IIRC, you shoot with a Rebel kit and a Plastic-Fantastic 50/1.8. (In b4 "I'm waiting for the 5D mk.II LOL!") Btw, I'm not poor either, I just have other priorities. Do you realize how much good whiskey you can buy for the price of an 1D?
|