Probably cheaper to use the same processor, lowering unit cost with
increased volume, than to design another one. Then the only way to limit
performance and avoid competing too well with the 10D was through software.
Fortunately for me, they saved money there too, just making tiny
changes, rather than rewriting, and leaving the same executable
otherwise, so the changes could be learned by comparison with the 10D
executable and reversed. As a result, I and others have a 300D with most
of the removed 10D functionality restored. I'll bet they don't make that
mistake again.
What I am questioning in the E-300, though, is not the idea of removing
features in a less expensive model, but one specific choice of feature
to downgrade. I think speed of operation is one universal characteristic
that has a large effect on user satisfaction. It's painfully slow to
download 6mp images from a 300D and frustrating if one is eager to see
the images. 8mp on the E-300 will be even slower. My fear is that people
react differently to different characteristics. For example, they can
understand having to pay more for photographic features, more mp, faster
shutter speeds, faster and/or sharper lenses, higher iso/loser noise,
etc. Download speed seems to me to be in another category closer to
ergonomics. Why simply make the camera irritating to use? Will that make
people feel like buying another camera from you?
Moose
C.H.Ling wrote:
>Not as poor as the 300D, C*non just modify the software without saving a
>buck to reduce the performance.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|