[llpoolej]

Of course anything is possible and Oly deciding to pull out of the DSLR business is a possibility. I don't see it as a likelihood. With Canon, you really have to decide to go full frame or their other dslr's. Can't switch the digital lenses onto the FF ones without issues. My Canon lenses I had for my old TL Canon don't work with the new Canon's, which left me free to decide on any system. Had I had nice glass for C/N, I probably would have gone the direction of the lenses

The thing is, I feel I have spent alot less on my lenses than I would with another system. I don't need quite as many. My 14-54 came with the camera, and those two together were a total of $900(a year ago almost exactly) Then I purchased the Sigma, which was cheap, both price wise and quality wise. Not a bad buy for the $$ spent though. Sold it for what I paid for it. I paid $749 for the 50-200 and $379 for the 50mm macro. I also have three OM lenses to use with the OM adapter that came with the camera. Again, the legacy lenses are *OK* but not as good as the digital ones

So, I have $2000 invested in my whole system lenses included. That is 14mm-400mm. That is the aging pro body(which I am anxiously waiting for the replacement)

I buy my clothes the same way. No need to go to the off brands when you can get the name brands cheaper, if you wait for the sales.

I have nothing against any of the systems. I think they all have their strengths. I do think that Olympus takes a rap that isn't always fair. Though, if something is repeated often enough it becomes "truth".

I have fine wine taste on a cheap beer budget. I am just a very good shopper and wait until I find it at the price I want to pay for it. I really want the EC-14 and when I find it for a great deal(and I will eventually!!) I will buy it. Then I will have 560mm of reach for not much $$$. And I won't have to sacrifice image quality

I like the system. I bought into it because it fits me well. I completely understand those who like other systems. I like other systems too! If I were going to change, it would be to the D200, again, I would have to put glass equivalent to what I use on it now though, as I doubt I could deal with the quality of the lessor glass. Glass does make a difference. As a *rule*, you get what you pay for. The 50mm 1.8 is an exception. Though the lessor quality glass is probably fine, I would expect it takes more photoshopping to get really nice results. With the slower lenses, it is harder to get sports action. With the slower lenses it is harder to achieve shallow depth of field ect; and so on

It always amazes me when I see someone buy a super nice body like a 5D and stick a cheap lens on it. Usually those are the same people who then complain about the camera being the problem


Oh, and I have to say though the 50mm 1.8 is not expensive, it isn't a cheaply made slow lens. That is what I mean by "cheap" both price, construction and perfomance.

Many of the 2nd party lenses for C/N are not "cheap" The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is about the same price as my 50-200 2.8-3.56. Image quality is probably very similar, though I would venture to say my Zuiko is much better built(and weatherproof)