Subject: | [OM] Re: E1 vs E300 |
---|---|
From: | "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:09:33 -0800 |
The interview the Ukranian camera club had with the Olympus people (that someone posted a link to a few months back) seemed to imply that Olympus didn't think a small digital camera would be considered professional ... I can understand placing a bet on the most likely to win horse, but if it is widely believed at Olympus that a digital camera the size of an OM isn't "professional" ... it is a sad era. -jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Frangoulis" <lists@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I don't quite get it either. I have not manipulated an E-300, but the > E-1 does seem huge as compared to an OM. Not to mention the lenses - > they may be smaller than the competition, but they are large when > compared to Zuikos - just look up the filter ring diameters > > Only Pentax seems to have kept small size as a design goal, unfortunately. > > Bernard ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: OM-4 stuff is on the Bay now, Jeff Keller |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: E1 vs E300, Winsor Crosby |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: E1 vs E300, Moose |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: E1 vs E300, Winsor Crosby |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |