ping phoTogs

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

It is interesting, but the way I read it there is currently little to no communication between the camera body and lens. Older lenses would be fine, but if you want autofocus and the ability to control things like the aperture with the camera body you are stuck with micro four thirds lenses. That isn't bad, but some people prefer the newer Canon or Nikon lens families instead.

You can use both u4/3 and 4/3 lenses on u4/3 camera bodies, though the latter requires an adaptor. The shallow flange depth on both 4/3 and u4/3 camera bodies permits the use of a number of adaptors for MANUAL lenses. Yes, you have to use them fully manually, but you can set them so that the in-camera IS functions. This is especially useful with old manual prime lenses.

I've used an old OM 50mm F1.4 on my Olympus E-3 and E-30, with IS functioning properly. The camera was actually capable of automatically metering the scene, by reading the light levels.

You'll never get autofocus with a non-4/3 or non-u4/3 lens.

My usual walk-around setup with my E-P2 is a 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 4/3 lens, via adaptor.

[Avatard]

Look for Nikon and Canon to maybe make a Micro Four Thirds camera with a "hot" adapter.

[Papa_Complex]

I doubt that they'll jump on the u4/3 standard. If anything they'll try to create a Micro Four-Thirds killer. Olympus frequently gets to specific technology early (live view with tilt-able screens, anti-dust systems, in-body IS...), but is soon forgotten when the two biggies throw their weight into it.

*EDIT* Shot this a couple of days ago with the E-P2, using a Zuiko u4/3 17mm F2.8 pancake lens.



Still hoping for the OP's feature wish list.

[AquaPython]

i am starting to lean towards the T1i

slightly better than bottom of the barrel, lots of good reviews, and i really like that it had 1080p video.
the T2i just came out, but i don't see the difference
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=18385

[goof2]

There doesn't appear to be much difference at all outside of the expected pixel creep which really won't matter anyway. For whatever the difference in price ends up being you should be able to pick up some accessories or maybe even a lower end lens.

[Papa_Complex]

I'm not a Canon guy, but look into the kit lens that is included. I think that I remember the 18-55 IS got a recent re-work and that the new lens is substantially better. The old one was apparently quite a dog.

*EDIT* Maybe it was the 15-85. Like I said, not a Canon guy.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'm not a Canon guy, but look into the kit lens that is included. I think that I remember the 18-55 IS got a recent re-work and that the new lens is substantially better. The old one was apparently quite a dog.

*EDIT* Maybe it was the 15-85. Like I said, not a Canon guy.

There was an 18-55 that was Canon's default kit lens until they introduced the Rebel XSi/450D about 2 years ago. It didn't have image stabilization though. The "new" kit lens does have IS and is supposed to be a nice improvement.

[Papa_Complex]

I thought that I had read about an IS kit lens being pretty crappy and getting an upgrade. Oh well, I guess I'll need to pay better attention to the "lesser brands"

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I thought that I had read about an IS kit lens being pretty crappy and getting an upgrade. Oh well, I guess I'll need to pay better attention to the "lesser brands"

Plenty of people complain about both the old lens and the newer IS lens, but I haven't seen anything about a Mark II version. Then again I don't pay much attention either unless I am getting ready to buy something. The IS lens takes decent pictures in my opinion but the main complaint seems to be that neither are built as well or have the aperture of the thousand dollar 17-55 USM. It is the typical "all kit lenses are crap" mentality.

[Mr Lefty]

I'm more of a Nikon guy myself... but one thing that does frustrate me about Nikon is the price of glass (if I want Nikon glass that is) compared to Cannon, the number of lenses available is fewer and the price is higher... but I just like the way the Nikon functions.

I had a Reble Xt and it wasn't bad, but felt cheap when i compared it to the Nikon D200 I wanted... and the D300 I ended up with.... but of course it's understandable when comparing a $600 camera(when I bought it) to a $1200 and $1500 camera respectfully.

like Papa said... make a list of exactly what you want... then do some research. don't rely on what someone says is better.. as we all have different things that are important to us...

also... REMEMBER... don't get a camera that's over your head... odds are if it's too complicated for you to use with out the manual near by... you're not gonna use it. I found that out with my D300... it sat for a couple months because it was intimidating, as far as all the damn settings went... but I forced myself to go out and fuck around with it... now I really do love the thing... still have quite a bit to learn, but find myself taking it with me more, and taking more and more pictures