Why I switched to an OM-D Locked

Started Feb 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
idiotekniQues
Senior MemberPosts: 1,237
Re: Why I am NOT switching to an OM-D
In reply to Greynerd, Feb 11, 2013

Greynerd wrote:

zxaar wrote:


Tell it to OP who seems to think that size and weight are everything.

mferencz wrote:

His point is that it's the sweet sport between maintaining high quality performance and size. Why stop with the Q in your example. If it's just about size, they make cameras the size of a postage stamp nowadays.

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

He did not say size and weight is everything. He just said he is switching to an omd because of the size difference. After that everyone else's imagination took over.

you are correct i did not say IQ but the OM-D and the 12-35 produce the same or better IQ than the 40D and 17-55 combo, at a much smaller size/weight. the picture encapsulates the size difference with the two systems being equal in production more or less.

i switched over back in june. i gave the 40D and 17-55 to my sister so she could shoot her baby with something fast not with a P&S. she stopped by so i took a comparison shot.

-- hide signature --

www.pixelsquish.com

Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow