Absolutely. It *is* a bit of a pain in the arse, though to have to wait
for a file to be written before preceding. I assume on the E-10 or
E-20, there is a buffer of at least a few shots, which mitigates that,
if not renders it moot. On my C-2000 (different class of camera, yes)
there is no buffer, so I have to wait several seconds for a TIFF to be
written.
My frame of reference is an OM which, of course, has no write time
issues, but the buffer is limited to 36 shots, or 250 in special
configuration. ;-)
Earl
ClassicVW@xxxxxxx wrote:
>There's a few things you can complain about the E-10 for, but, IMO, you can't
>say they're faults, (which you didn't, I know). Considering we're in a world
>where 'every six months there's a next generation digital' . I accept it for
>what it is, and what it does, knowing full well there's many more "latest
>gizmos" out there. Kind of like how we felt (still feel) about our OM1s and
>OM-2s, yes?
>
>George S.
>
> edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>Everything I've read on this and the E-20N is that they're great for
>what they are, and I wouldn't refuse one if given. But everyone who has
>one mentions, if not complains, about write speeds, especially for RAW.
>The glass, not surprisingly, is universally praised.
>
>Earl
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|