We're really OT now. The size of the 4/3 sensor is not that much smaller than the APS-C. APS-C is 1.53 times the area (not twice).
There's a good diagram here: hhttp://photographytechnologies.blogspot.com/2007/11/digital-camera-sensor-size.html My E-620 is smaller than any of my Canon FD bodies, and a lot lighter.It is certainly smaller than anything Canon or Nikon offer in APS-C sensor cameras, and Bob's E-450 is smaller still. It does a decent job. (I still find my slides to be better, or more attractive) Of course I'm still getting used to it, and I don't see the point of taking it on vacation. Charging batteries for these things is a real limitation. Capa would have run out of power half way up the beach. $ for $ you can't beat what the 4/3 system offers. It is a very good replacement for utilitarian 35mm, and it's even fun to use.
Bob, that's a great set of photos - some incredible shots there, and some great painting too. Thanks for sharing.
Elias On Sep 24, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Robert Marvin wrote:
FWIW the Olympus 410, 420, and 450 are the smallest DSLRs made. I bought an Olympus E410 [discontinued and VERY cheap] several months ago to use for a neighborhood newsletter I edit and for documenting other neighborhood events, like this:http://www.flickr.com/photos/25605294@N00/sets/72157622265859141/I just added an E450, as a second body, so that I won't have to switch lenses. The small size was a big attraction--I hate the idea of "35 mm-like" cameras that are as big as MF cameras.The camera is admirable for this purpose. I use it where formerly I'd have shot film, scanned the negatives, but never printed them. I will probably never print the Olympus photographs either. It will NOT replace my Rolleiflex for my REAL photography, which will always be B&W, printed in my darkroom. Still, it's a joy to use and the image quality is fine for my purposes.Bob Marvin Mark Rabiner wrote:The cameras which came out for that [4/3] format were always bigger than theprevalent APS-C, or 1.5x crop
