Some of the bigger professional organizations that require more consistency from their photographers have indicated they need to use Sony. And there are good reasons for such. But that is for the professionals. The sales in Japan to the public is a different story. A collection of the sales records of over 50% of the camera stores showed only one Sony and it was not the top seller. There were three Olympus/OMDS cameras and not one was the OM-1. And Fuji's APS-C I believe was ahead of both the Sony and Olympus/OMDS cameras. This takes nothing away from Sony which is considered one of the best professional cameras. Different levels of cameras for different levels of photographers.

But there will be some photographers that will buy a Sony and there will be some "photographers" that will show you that they own a Sony. It is the same for any other brand. I know there are photographers that even buy the latest and greatest 4/3rds Panasonic or OMDS just because they can.

Primes are still sharper for their focal length than a zoom. The difference in sharpness is not nearly as much as it was in the film days. Of course, one has to "zoom" with their feet with a prime to get closer to the subject. And if one is already at the edge of the cliff with a prime, the photographer standing next to them with more zoom gets the shot. I still will use my long prime. But when I win the lottery and have an extra $8K, I will get my sharp, fast, long zoom.

Not a "stupid, useless" poll. Some are very adamant about the issue though. I use a filter for polarization and very extreme environments (welding shop with hot sparks, crosive fumes, etc.). Ordinary weather conditions (rain, wind, dust, salt spray, snow, etc.) do not require a filter. As advanced as my camera system and my cameras are, neutral density and variable density filters are not going to be needed any more.

But not everyone owns a system like mine. And there are others that prefer more or extra protection for their equipment. Will a filter actually provide the extra protection the photographer desires? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would the lens be better without a filter? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would a lens be better protected with the lens shade? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would the lens be better protected with a filter and a lens shade. Again, sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. There is no one solution that will protect a lens perfectly. The least protection is no filter with the most protection being a filter and a lens shade. But, again, sometimes it will protect and sometimes it won't.

Panasonic and OMDS will continue to push 4/3rds forward. The G9 mkII will push the video side of 4/3rds even more and be even more competitive with other formats. I know some photographers are disappointed that OMDS is not keeping up with Panasonic's video. But it is hard enough for other formats to keep up at the 4/3rds price and features - let alone OMDS.

Base off this site and other sites, 4/3rds is pushing in as a second camera for travel. And then some replace their full frame prime camera with the 4/3rds. It will take a longer time, but eventually 4/3rds will make a bigger impact in the camera industry in manufacturing and sales.

IS has increased to 8.5 stops, buffer is 2X bigger, ND has both in-camera and live changes (full ND, graduated ND, 3 choices of line, etc.), and other changes.

Does the Sigma lens have 7 stops of image stabilization like the OM 150-600? The lens is designed to take the 2X teleconverter and be handheld (2400 in 35mm terms). Can one do that with Sony, Canon, and Nikon? Does the Sigma have IP53 weatherproofing like the OM 150-600? How certain is everyone that the two lenses are that identical in true design?

Actually the real news is not the renaming but the new and upgraded features. Increased IS, specialized in-camera and live ND, better autofocus, better object recognition, and more, are all new. It looks like OMDS will not let the spirit that started with Olympus die.

Even though the first digital OM-1 had "Olympus" on it, it was the last tribute to Olympus Corporation for their camera start. Even though Olympus still has 10% of OMDS and the idea of the OM-1 started at Olympus, OMDS did all the R&D and manufacturing. Olympus Corporation gave OMDS a time limited usage for the use of the logo "Olympus". As we can now see, OMDS is now in charge of the company. We will no longer see "Olympus" and will only see "OM Systems" from here on out. "Olympus" will not be on the OM-1 mkII and future revisions.

That is correct. Even though Olympus still owns 10% of OMDS, it did not give OMDS the right to use the Olympus Company's name forever. There were agreements in the sale governing how long the Olympus name could be used on the products.

There were about 10 interchangeable screens. I had the center split screen / micro prism and an all center micro prism screen. I had the one with the grid lines etched into it for leveling and helping with Rule of Thirds. But I also had the all mat finish screen that I liked the best. It always told you what was in focus across the whole viewfinder with just one look. The mat screen in my OM4ti, with its ability to do up to eight 2.5° spot readings for exposure, was one of the very best slide film cameras ever made. One could easily fit the exposure the best way it could be fit in that narrow slide film range. One felt so less challenged using print film or black and white film with those films extra range.

The minimum trip to do a good job of covering Scotland would be 3 weeks. A longer time would be better. This would allow enough time for some historical sites along with the wildlife and landscapes. And how good are you at driving on the "wrong" side of the road? On the Isle of Skye, when the roads are narrow, do you know how to let a tour bus get by? And there are other narrow places other than Skye.

To give you an idea of what is possible, look at the 14 day Scotland tour at Globus or other tour agencies. My wife (retired travel agency owner) and I did the Globus tour and many of the sights before visiting my wife's ancestral castle. It was a very good tour and offered more than my three week 1975 climbing trip of Glencoe, Fort Williams with Ben Nevis, and Isle of Skye with the Coolins. Needless to say many of the dirt roads of 1975 in Skye are now paved and still narrow. And small villages are now small towns. But Scotland is still Scotland with all of it's castles and rich heritage. It is rich with photographs for the taking.

At about 5000' altitude and up, they become useful to help cut out UV. Otherwise, a UV filter is like you have said, a protection filter. Digital cameras tend to be rather UV insensitive.

In this digital age, I only use polarizers. If I wanted more filters, they would be neutral density filters. Otherwise, it is post processing. Yes, it is still useful to use filters on a digital camera, but it is not necessary like in the film days. And post processing saves one money and travel weight of any and all the additional filters other than polarizers.

You will be shooting mostly through the center of the lens design which will be the sharpest part of the lens design. At $119, I would find it hard to be disappointed based off my experiences with Tokina.

I love the whole set, but I particularly like 2, 3, and 4. Good shooting.

Even though I would do so anyway, it is very good to be reminded what can happen when we get forgetful. Thanks.