Skip wrote: >By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce
>lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't follow. >Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm >filter size and $2199.95 >Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99. >See, other things enter in to the equation. Yup, like f2 rather than f2.8. Or to give another example, Olympus 300mm f2.8, 3290g, about 4750 pounds, Canon 600 f4, 5300g about 5800 pounds. Lighter, cheaper and a whole stop brighter. I think I'll rest my case there. Peter -- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
