Sorry, I have to disagre with you about the lenses, only because I work in the industry. On paper, f/2 sounds better then f/2.8 - the reality of it is that it is that the 14-35, which is really a 28-70 lens, is no sharper then a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, which I own. On top of that, none of their bodies are anywhere near as fast fps as the 20d, and they are barely as fast as a Rebel XT... not to mention a d200 or 1d mkII for speed.
Having pretty numbers on the side of a lens looks good, but not when the body can't do anything w/ the speed and not when the prices are 15-200% more in price. the Oly 7-14mm lens (14-28 w/ their 2x multiplier) runs just shy of $3000. Compare that to Canon's 16-35L lens for around $1600. Same goes with just about every lens they sell.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Steven,
Sorry, I have to disagre with you about the lenses, only because I work in the industry. On paper, f/2 sounds better then f/2.8 - the reality of it is that it is that the 14-35, which is really a 28-70 lens, is no sharper then a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, which I own. On top of that, none of their bodies are anywhere near as fast fps as the 20d, and they are barely as fast as a Rebel XT... not to mention a d200 or 1d mkII for speed.
Having pretty numbers on the side of a lens looks good, but not when the body can't do anything w/ the speed and not when the prices are 15-200% more in price. the Oly 7-14mm lens (14-28 w/ their 2x multiplier) runs just shy of $3000. Compare that to Canon's 16-35L lens for around $1600. Same goes with just about every lens they sell.