Hi Alin, In general you are correct, and these are my biggest gripes with Canon too, along with the crummy viewfinders (theoretically, in practice they work at least as well as the 5n).
> - everything from lenses to bodies is almost twice as big and heavy > than equivalent Pentax (entry level aside); Herally yes. But the 70-200/4 is only 15 gam heavier and 9 mm longer than the A70-210/4. And the A zoom is the one that I've been carrying around in the pastfew years. So the weight and size difference was worth it to me, at least in this case. The new EOS 300V (Revel Ti) is smaller than the 5n, and has a few extra features that I like. > - EF zooms and even L lenses flare like hell (truly I can't > understand how a company technologically committed can effectively > disdain quality MC); I have read this, and I believe it (sad for Canon). The only lenses that I have compared side by side are the 24-85 and 24-90 as well as the K85/1.8 with the 85/1.8 USM. In the first case I saw no real differences, in the second case Canon was better. But I consider the K85/1.8 to have the worst coating of any SMC lens. In general you are probably right... > - no spot meter on mid level bodies (to me spot is crucial, and much > as I like the EOS-30, the lack of true spot cut my appeal for it) Yes, you are right, but I personally use the spot meter relatively rarely. If I'm not sure, I take an extra shot. And I will probably be OK with 9.5% "partial meter". Thank you for the way in which you participate in this discussion! Cheers, Boz
