The E-P1's construction is appropriate for the other elements of the system ... just take a closer look at the 14-42mm kit lens or 17mm kit lens. Do they look like something requiring a metal body?
UCSB wrote:
The E-P1's construction is appropriate for the other elements of the system ... just take a closer look at the 14-42mm kit lens or 17mm kit lens. Do they look like something requiring a metal body?
Well, Olympus does make a big deal about compatibility with both the standard 4/3rds system lenses and some of those are fairly large/heavy, enough so that a proper metal lens mount on the E-P1 would have been desirable. The "system", according to Olympus is larger than just those two lenses. Olympus even makes an OM lens adapter, so add those lenses to the system as well.
Some can be heavy relative to a tiny body like the E-P1 and would put a strain on a weak lens mount. They are often larger than you might expect given the format. For instance, the SWD 12-60, a lens I once owned and one that I'm sure will find its way onto someone's E-P1, weighs over a pound. That might not sound like much, but add the adapter and your looking at putting some strain on the lens mount. Plenty of 4/3rds users will be putting their glass on the E-P1 and some of these lenses can be quite heavy. The 7-14 is close to 2 pounds. Just something to keep in mind as these lenses are fully compatible and promoted by Olympus for use on the E-P1.
hey the EOS 3 was polycarbonate and I don't remember that being considered inferior. It would survive knocks that would damage a metal 1V sometimes. A lot more impact resistant than the metal alloy.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
hey the EOS 3 was polycarbonate and I don't remember that being considered inferior. It would survive knocks that would damage a metal 1V sometimes. A lot more impact resistant than the metal alloy.
The EOS 3 has a reputation of being well constructed and uses a combination of Magnesium alloy and glass-fiber reinforced polycarbonate. Who knows, this EP1 may turn out to be very solid. You would think that Olympus engineered it to withstand the lenses they say are compatible.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Some can be heavy relative to a tiny body like the E-P1 and would put a strain on a weak lens mount. They are often larger than you might expect given the format. For instance, the SWD 12-60, a lens I once owned and one that I'm sure will find its way onto someone's E-P1, weighs over a pound. That might not sound like much, but add the adapter and your looking at putting some strain on the lens mount. Plenty of 4/3rds users will be putting their glass on the E-P1 and some of these lenses can be quite heavy. The 7-14 is close to 2 pounds. Just something to keep in mind as these lenses are fully compatible and promoted by Olympus for use on the E-P1....Show more →
Do you think anybody will manage to hold an E-P1/12-60 combo by that tiny camera alone? Apart from that, most of the other Olys are plastic as well, and I haven't seen any where the lens has fallen off.
thrice wrote:
I have, and I have an M6, I noticed my 350D more when I had it.
The way richard finds excuses to unproductively attack leica though, you'd think they killed his family.
Well, the Germans did attack England some 65-70 years ago, and I'm sure many of those bombers had Leicas onboard to take snapshots of the destruction they caused, so maybe you're right.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Well, the Germans did attack England some 65-70 years ago, and I'm sure many of those bombers had Leicas onboard to take snapshots of the destruction they caused, so maybe you're right.
The Soviets might have finished the job sooner had Solms been in charge ;-)
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Do you think anybody will manage to hold an E-P1/12-60 combo by that tiny camera alone? Apart from that, most of the other Olys are plastic as well, and I haven't seen any where the lens has fallen off.
I don't recall that particular lens having a tripod mount so, for instance, attach the camera directly to a tripod and the lens becomes supported by the camera. This, in fact, would be how I imagine a lot of larger/heavier lenses being used with the E-P1, made practical by the LCD/live view screen. Hand holding, yes, no doubt you would support the camera with one hand and the lens with the other.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Well, the Germans did attack England some 65-70 years ago, and I'm sure many of those bombers had Leicas onboard to take snapshots of the destruction they caused, so maybe you're right.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What bothers me most about this is not the use of plastic in the camera but the poor journalism, false promotion. I really thought this camera had a stainless steel construction by everything written.
Bearing in mind this quote by Ernst Leitz's son, "My father... ...was able to act because the government needed our factory's military output", it's hard for me to get too sentimental about Leica's decisive role in Hitler's downfall. My father always reminds me that the war wasn't about the holocaust, it was about avoiding conquest by a popular but deranged fascist despot. Pa should know: he spent 4 years risking his life on destroyers in that struggle.
I somehow suspect that researchers/historians often are better at making valued insightful comments about the war than the low-level participants themselves. But brainiac downplaying leicas good deeds is "in character", so I should not expect otherwise..
ulrikft wrote:
I somehow suspect that researchers/historians often are better at making valued insightful comments about the war than the low-level participants themselves.
I don't think it takes a historian to understand that annexing or invading Austria, Sudetenland, Poland, Danzig, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, France, Monaco, Yugoslavia, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the Soviet Union were at the heart of the disagreement. The genocide wasn't widely credited until the end of the war, and it's not entirely clear that any of the allied countries would have gone to war over that alone, even if they had understood the scale to which it would grow.
>But brainiac downplaying leicas good deeds is "in character", so I should not expect otherwise..
I don't wish to downplay Leitz's good deeds, but equally one mustn't rose tint history so that the rise of the Fuhrer and his spoiling for the most ferocious war in history appear to be a bit of bad luck. Leitz was a complicit part of the Nazi military industrial complex. Individual stories of heroism are all very well, but in real terms Leica had a hand in killing a lot of allied troops as well as saving the lives of German Jews. There is a danger in blaming all that destruction on one man with a silly moustache. They say history is written by the victors, but it's amazing how much of it can be quietly disappeared by the vanquished.
Frankly I object to the suggestion that I have it in for Leica. I would like to see Leica succeed, but I don't think it is producing cameras commensurate with its lenses or its reputation. The market appears to agree with me. In my view that's not prejudice on my part, but simply a degree of honesty that is unwelcome here due to latent brand snobbery. Criticising, for instance, Canon, is a national sport on FM, but criticising Leica is still some kind of taboo.
Let's get back to the EP1, which is innovative and exciting despite coming from one of the Axis countries ;-)
"...Leitz was a complicit part of the Nazi military industrial complex..."
so was Krupps, BMW, HUGO BOSS, VW, PORSCHE, IBM, BAYERN...this is a can from which you can't pick only the worms you want.
"...Criticising, for instance, Canon, is a national sport on FM, but criticising Leica is still some kind of taboo..."
It's criticizing LEICA DRFs by comparing them to CANON DSLRs that gets you into boiling water hee Brainiac
"...Let's get back to the EP1, which is innovative and exciting despite coming from one of the Axis countries ;-)..."
Agreed and good thing for that because if it was left to the Alliance we would be using KODAKs and HPs
