Subject: | [OM] Re: Canon D20 |
---|---|
From: | "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:49:00 -0800 |
Ummm.... if they design from the ground up, they couldn't handle it much different than they handled the E-1. ***A free adaptor to the die-hard OM users is pretty nice!!!*** (They should also make it so you could buy the adaptors). My 50-200 went into a coma but Olympus had a "brand new in box" replacement on my doorstep in one week. My experience is that they do a very good job of taking care of the important things. Hopefully they will come out with small pro-level bodies for the E system. I think their apparent belief that no one would take a tiny DSLR serious is where most OM users disagree. For me, doubling the number of pixels might get me away from film. Until then the E-1 is great for fast turn-around pictures that won't be enlarged. Now if I can figure out why the Olympus Viewer won't run on any of my XP boxes 8^( -jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "IanG" <I@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [OM] Re: Canon D20 > > I'd have loved to go for the E1 and the idea of a digital system designed > from the ground; I think Olympus made a super job with the E1 but........ > > > Finally remember that Olympus totally ditched us OM users without a single > qualm and made absolutely no concession to us with the introduction of the > E1. > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: Canon D20, Winsor Crosby |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: If you were only allowed three (3) types of OM body....., AG Schnozz |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Canon D20, Jeff Keller |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Canon D20, Piers Hemy |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |