>Tomoko Yamamoto wrote:
>>
>> Olympus could also issue a commemorative version of the OM-1 with a chrome
>> body at a reasonably high price for snob appeal.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
>Chrome looks cool, especialy on the OM-1, OM-2. Sadly Olympus never
>produced a real "chrome" version of the OM-4Ti, with all the fittings in
>chrome instead of black (exept plastic parts).
>Never understand why I should pay more for an inverior black coating
>compared to the longer lasting chrome, but I have to admit, that cameras
>in black look smaller.
>
>Richard
>
>
I think it was a problem of Olympus being too far ahead of the market. They
did produce a "bare" titanium model, but it was so odd looking next to
everyone else's traditional chrome that I believe it did not do well in the
marketplace and they quickly replaced it with a model in which the titanium
was painted black. Later when the "prestige" cameras came out with titanium
bodies(even though the most expensive had only a thin electroplate), the
"champagne" look of the titanium became 'hot'. Unfortunately, Oly never saw
fit to reissue the unblackened titanium model.
The reason the black camera is more expensive is that the titanium top and
bottom plate is much more difficult and expensive to produce, is lighter
and stronger than traditional chrome plated brass or aluminum.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|