>I dunno, Winsor, the shots looked pretty unremarkable to me.
>
>George S.
I'm always getting burned on this stuff, where it turns out the guy was
"just kidding." But, at the risk of being burned yet one more time (and
just to prove that old cabbies really can't learn new tricks) . . . do you
mean to say that you find the _content_ on these pictures to be
unremarkable (a sentiment with which I'd agree) or that the _image quality_
(which is what I assume the purpose of this exercise to be--to demonstrate
the image quality possible by wedding Zuikos to the E-1) is unremarkable?
Just curious.
For myself, this somewhat excites my interest, perhaps not with the E-1
specifically in mind but surely with the possibility of one day being able
to use my Zuikos with _some_ kind of DSLR body, say, an E-2 or E-2b+7a or
whatever the hell they'll tag it as. (My rationale for this interest stems
from realization that I'll likely be unable to ever afford to replace what
I have in terms of Zuiko lenses with digital counterparts, unless I'd care
to substantially scrap my analog system in favor of digital, and that's not
on the cards.)
Tris
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|