But under the furious dieagreement you don't seem to eb actually disagreeing...
While there is no argument that the Olympus E line
philosophy is about offering quality results in a smaller package
than most, why make the leap that EVERY camera body in the line has
to be small and light.This does not make sense at all.
I'm not suggesting every body has to be small and light - nor do I think it possible. A high end camera with a big VF, reasonable shock resistance, waterproofing etc will always weigh more than a camera without those things. What I am saying is that an E series camera should, for marketing reasons as much as anything else, weight a bit less than the competition. The E3 doesn't, and that leaves people asking "why do I have to have a smaller, noisier sensor, if the camera is the same size?" The answer is "Because the lesnes are smaller you schmuck!" but marketing that relies on pointing out to the customer he's an idiot rarely does well... So we should see what could be done to produce a smaller camera without compromising performance.
First , the E3 body weight is quite similar to the other cameras that
it competes with ( Nikon D300 , Canon 40D).
Yes, that's the problem. See above.
Photo reviewers and
magazines can separate the DSLR markets in some silly sub markets (
photo enthusiast, semi pro etc...) the fact remains that there are
two kind of cameras as far as a pro is concerned
the ones you can rely on as your everyday tool and the others.
while the E4XX s and the Exxx s are nice cameras that produce great
results , a pro needs a camera with differents ( such as the bigger
viewfinder and the weather resistance treatment).
No disagereement - where have I suggested compromising the VF or the weather resistance?
The suggestions
that Louis are making would be unacceptable by most photographers
Why? I've removed weight and size, with no loss of performance and function, and suggested an optional (but supplied) skeletal grip for those who actually WANT size, plus portrait shooting.
another suggestion which i find rather illogical is to change the
battery to a smaller one. that's ridiculous . at time when the TSA
administration is implementing limits on spare batteries you can take
with you , I GUARANTEE you that having two different batteries ( and
or lower capacity batteries) for the two bodies in your bag does not
make ANY SENSE
So fit the grip. Then you have all day pro life, and another all day hit in ONE spare battery. On the other hand, if you are hiking, take the grip off and fit the small battery.
oh and by the way , this is why my back up body is a 500 and not a
400 because I don't want to carry more batteries and adapters that I
need
Perfectly sensible.
I found it odd to say it mildly that the owner of a nikon D3 would
complain about the weight of the E3
I complain about the weight of that too! But then the D3 was always going to be a heavy pig, Oly are selling the E system as light.
More importantly , for a pro , what matters is the weight of the
total system. As for me , getting older and all , the weight is a
issue ( and will be more of an issue in the future). This is why , I
appreciate that on critical assignments , I can have a relatively
light bag by selecting a E3 and some of the lightest lens on the
markets
I can also have a light E4xxxx or Exxx as a second back up body just
in case.
I agree. However, you are just looking at reality, and I am looking at perception. I doubt Oly have sold a whole load of E3s - the noise performance really IS worse than cameras with bigger sensors and, at a glance, to Joe Public, it is just as big and heavy. Now you know and I know that the overall system is lighter, how would like to get that message across? It would be a lot easier if the camera were lighter too.
when I read the posts on this forum , I suspect that the extra weight
comes from all these lenses that you guys have
maybe next time you go on the trip , you should think of the lenses
you REALLY need
I don't KNOW what lenses I'm going to need. That's the point. My standard E3 bag is the 7-14, 12-60, 50-200, 50mm macro, and TC1.4. That's manageable and very high quality (my equivalenet Nikon bag weighs a ton). Even so, a little less mass would be nice.
I also wonder why is this craze about battery grips on bodies shaped
like the E3 are you all shooting 10FPs or what.
I hate the stupid things myself. But some people like them.
Finally something on the E1 . I have one like it a lot but says that
since I have mastered the E3 , i don't see many reasons to use it. I
agree that there are some ergonomics choices which were superior on
the E1 but at the end of the day , it does not make better pictures ,
not even close
If there is another Oly pro body in the future ( I would suspect not
at least until 2009) let's hope that it would be an E4 and not an E5
. But please oly there is nothing wrong with the E4 weight.
E4 is unlikely because it mean death in Japanese, or something like that anyway (so I hear). You've just said above that you like smaller and lighter, so you seem, on one level to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps you mean that the E3's weight is fine if it takes that to get the performance? I agree - however changing the materials the prism and body are made of might well reduce weight while making the VF bigger and brighter and the body stronger. The only cost would be cost - glass and mag alloy are cheap, fancy optical plastics and carbon fibre are expensive.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam 
