http://www.mindspring.com/~rexjackson/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of GMA
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 9:17 PM
>
> Also, listened to a salesmans' shpiel on digital cameras. Customer was
> trying to decide between one of the Nikons, a big Sony and the Oly 600L
> and 620L. Based on what I heard, Olys' got this market by the tail and
> ain't gonna let go. The 2 Olys had more features, more pixels and they
> look way cooler than the others. I didn't stick around to see which one
> walked out the door. At $849 and $1169, I can't even think about either
> of these right now. Must admit, though, even if he was talking about
> digital cameras, it sorta got me all choked up when he talked up Olympus
> and trashed the competition. I haven't heard that in a camera store
> since the early 80s.
I had a chance to use a 600L last spring as part of the coverage of Van
Halen's tour of New Zealand and Australia for their official web page. I've
gotta say that I didn't really care for it. There was a noticeable delay
between the time my finger depressed the "shutter" and the actual
"exposure". It might have been ok with The Grateful Dead, but with Edward
Van Halen running around and jumping up and down it was like rolling dice.
Also, it doesn't really hold many shots in high-res mode. I know things are
changing fast, but for right now (especially with consumer-level goods) a
scanned photo looks a lot better than what the 600L was able to deliver. The
photos I used it to take always ended up looking like a video capture to me.
-Rob
< 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 >
|