With all due respect I fail to see what focal length has to do with "amateurishness." And why are long teles "Silly?" In the field, 400mm really isn't very long at all.

I do agree there needs to be more wide angle coverage, but let's accept each camera for its design point. There must be technical issues with making a good ultra wide to fit a compact DC, not least of which must be the small sensor size. Your Ricoh at least has a 35mm image to work with. Nobody's proposing the S2 as a pro camera, why attack it as one?

Ken



At 11:27 AM 4/27/2005, you wrote:
On 26 Apr 2005 at 16:46, Ken Durling wrote:

> As far as others goes, Nikon has done it (24-80) so go buy one of
> those.

Far too big, light-years apart from the analog Ricoh 24mm....if I
have to carry that much camera, I might as well swing an entire
MiniTrekker on my back.

> Personally i think it's cool that one can have an imaged
> stabilized 430mm lens on a compact, and i use the long end a lot.
> Canon themselves do have a 28-100 zoom on the C-60/70.

But no 24mm whatsoever.

While even decent full-size 'standard' zooms exist in that range (24-
105).
While you absolute *need* IS with those silly extreme tele
capabilities (without the high aperture needed to isolate subject
from background)....adding cost for IS that a moderate 24mm zoom
wouldn't need....

28mm is what even the most clumsy amateur can use without the typical
wide-angle issues like boring-composition/lack-of-foreground, falling
lines and elliptical faces on the edge of the image.

Amateur camera's from an amateuristic manufacturer.


*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

Reply via email to