Subject: Re: Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Neil<email@example.com>
> > To be fair, those dedicated to photography find themselves, for different
> > reasons, drawn to the entire spectrum of great image producing machines
> > including, but not limited to Olympus, Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon, Leica,
> > PhaseOne, Panasonic, Sony, Pentax, Hasselblad, and others. It is just that
> > many of us, pro, or enthusiast have made our choices, and in some cases have
> > made a considerable investment in cameras, and glass.
> No doubt that brand choices are made for various reasons, and some of
> the makes are comparable in most ways. I was fortunate, in that all of
> my kits paid for themselves through the work that I did with them. In
> terms of image quality, I think that lenses make the biggest difference.
> In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
> since they're all less efficient than film cameras.
digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
or just make a smaller camera.
> So, control
> placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
> most important factors to me.
that applies to every product.
there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.
> I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
> hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
> camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
> least frustrating kits!
autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.