Why I switched to an OM-D Locked

Started Feb 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,305
Re: Why I am NOT switching to an OM-D

idiotekniQues wrote:

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.

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.

Yaa you did not say anything about IQ etc, nor did I say about all those things when I showed how Q was smaller than OMD.

The point is if I was to buy something for size and weight, OMD would not be my choice. Its much better to buy something like Rx100 if size and weight are major concern and if someone is talking of every day photography.

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

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