Good points, Frank. When I bought my first stereo gear during the '70s,
tho' value was a major consideration, styling and sensible ergonomics were
important factors. So I got a Technics receiver/amp, Teac tape deck,
Technics turntable, Bose 301's - not because they were superior to anything
else at the price (how would I know, I just listen to loud rock & roll?),
but because they appeared to be well made and the controls were easy to
operate without a manual.
That first rig was comparable to the SLRs of the day - the OMs, etc.
Straightforward, good looking, no pointless frills.
Compare that with today's all-in-one stereos with flashing glowinkies,
artificial sound modifiers ("concert hall", "club", etc.) and styling that
will be embarrassing 10 years from now (assuming they're still working). A
lot like today's entry level AF/AE P&S and SLR cameras.
So my preference for camera gear is pretty much the same. I want it to
work, not cost a lot, and not get in my way. Factors like ultimate
resolution are not at the top of my list. Photos with impact are. For me,
that's easier to accomplish with gear that works intuitively. That's
something the OMs do very well.
Lex
===
From: Frank Berryman <FAB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [OT] hifi was:[OM] Lens Test - Long and Opinionated
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:47:02 -0500
With respect to mid-fi, I believe that you are unlikely to hear much
difference among the brands. The difference relates more to fit, finish
and
feel, and to reliability...
Similarly, I believe the same to be true of 35mm cameras.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< 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 >
|