Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I hope they don't adopt that pretentious little conceit for a naming
> system. The old OM naming system seemed kind of rational with
> sequential numbering for the models, odd for manual exposure models,
> and adding a zero for the consumer level models. What's up with the
> current system. E-1 I understand, but E-300? Where is the E-3 it came
> from? Are they continuing the E-10, E-20 series with a zero thrown in
> for lens interchangeability? And the subtitle. Protect us from future
> e-bolts, e-amps, and other electrifying terms. And please don't keep
> E-volt like the silly "Rebel" sobriquet.
That naming scheme went wack with Oly much earlier:
XA (top of line), XA2 (lesser full auto pendant),
XA3 (successor to XA2), XA4 (with wider lens)
IS-1 (is IS-1000 in Europe) got just sequentially
numbered IS-2 (IS-2000) and IS-3 (IS-3000) -- all
with 35mm as widest focal length. Then came IS-5000
with 28mm as widest. Parallel we got IS-100, IS-200,
IS-300 and IS-500 with some little confuser thrown
in like IS-100s, IS-21, IS-30, IS-31 ... any clues
for a naming convention?
And PLEEEZE, don't look at those P+S thingies like
Epic (mju in Europe), Infinity, Stylus, SuperZoom,
LT, AZ, AF, MD, O-product, Ecru.
Hey, thoses marketing guys seem to have short
memories, fads for fashion and an extra creative
naming department.
Andreas
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|