> The original post, which was written by I don't remember who
> right now, when referring to the fact the E-300 had the
> "smaller lens mount," meant, and left it to be understood,
> that it was the same "smaller lens mount" as on the
> preexisting E-1. Admittedly, I assumed, although only for a
> millisecond, that the E-300 mount was a smaller yet mount than
> the smaller E-1 mount, but I quickly got over that
> misconception and realized that it was not in fact a smaller
> smaller mount but the same smaller size smaller mount, the two
> smaller mounts being equally small, i.e., identically smaller,
> in each or either instance, as the case may be.
Way to make us feel small, Walt.
> I'm still holding out, however, and resisting this digital
> siren song. But I must admit, it's getting more and more into
> the "ver-r-r-y interesting" area.
Why is it, then, that the (R)EVOLT does absolutely nothing for
me? I look at it and say "yuck". Maybe it's better in person,
but me thinks that Olympus is losing it. Brilliant idea and it
will sell well against the 2/3" prosumers and maybe the D70 or
Dribbel. But it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It
doesn't advance the Digital State of the Art.
They'll sell a few hundred thousand units, though.
Olympus still hasn't answered the need for optical
stabilization, larger/better monitors, higher frame-rates and
bigger buffers, faster auto-focus, or improved relations with
dealers.
Or how about the ability to get Tamron and Tokina to provide
3rd-party lens support?
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|