Putting off buying decisions for now is certainly a sensible option, but
for anyone thinking of going in now, picking a piece of junk because it
has more pixles makes little or no sense. After all, you can give you
camera an unexpected hard knock, or get caught it a rain shower, a day
after you get it - and then where are you?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 3:01 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bdcolen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus E-1 review
Good point but in the 1970s and 1980s, film camera construction was a
mature technology so it made sense to buy a body built for a four decade
life span...
Oly has already said that some future bodies in this family will capture
far more information from any given lens, which means the E-1 will not
be the ultimate expression of E series bodies. This is completely
unlike the OM-1 which to this day supports the latest (film-based) image
capture advances (emulsions). Remember when the Pulsar digital watch
was $5,000? I'm keeping my "powder dry" for now.
Lama
now playing: the film scanner is humming...
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> For those considering the digital Rebel, v the E-1, and for whatever
> it's worth - Sturdiness of build, weather proofing, and many of the
> other features that make the E-1 far more expensive than the digital
> Rebel are far, far more important in a digital camera than they are in
> a film camera.
>
> Ultimately, you get what you pay for.
< 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 >
< 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 >
|