>> |
Anonymous
>>135380 >>135383
I'm sick of this brandhate screwing up the board.
Olympus was the first company to try most of the new technologies we've had in the last few years. The only real problems with the four-thirds systems are the small finders and lack of primes. Olympus at least tried something innovative- a mount designed around the details of digital, instead of just shoving a CMOS into a film line. They didn't do as well as they could've, but the four-thirds system, for all its flaws, has been a major incubator for new digital technologies. They'll come a time when we'll be past the F-mount and the EOS mount, and the new mount will probably resemble four-thirds more than anything else, just with a larger sensor and wider aspect ratio.
And the small finders thing applies equally to your Rebel and D40. Manually focusing is difficult as hell with all of them, so if I had to shoot with one of those I'd autofocus. Not what I like, but the point is if you autofocus you have no reason to bitch about four-thirds.
The prime situation might be starting to get fixed, too; there's a new Zuiko 25/2.8 pancake lens, and while I prefer wider normals, it's a step in the right direction.
There's also nothing really wrong with the Sony system except the silly-looking "a" as its name. The sensors are pretty much the same as Nikon's and sensor-shift stabilization ought to be standard on everything. Wouldn't it be nice if Canon and Nikon users could slap the $80 50/1.8 on their cameras and have them stabilized?
I don't see any reason to go with Sony over Nikon or Pentax, at least on the spec sheet, though someone who likes the feel of a Sony DSLR obviously ought to buy one. All three brands are 1.5x crop, and Pentax offers sensor-shift, too, and Nikon has a wider set of legacy lenses and probably a larger used market than the the old Minolta stuff. But Sonys are just as capable cameras in the end as any other APS-C DSLR system.
|