In a message dated 11/29/2006 4:36:48 PM Central Standard Time,
bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
A lot of folks here are
slipping away to the Big 2, and I fear I'm one of them. When the time comes,
and it ain't far away, I'll be making the jump, probably to Nikon, but that
ain't hammered into the stone yet. I've got stuff I need to do that my E-1
just can't handle as well as current offerings from the Big 2, never mind
what the Big 2 will be unveiling as Oly finally trots out the E-3.
I'm a little curious why folks are thinking of going to Nik*n as opposed to
Can*n. It is not that Nik*n doesn't make a good camera, but rather if you
have a choice why you would choose a digital camera on which you weren't going
to be able to use your OM glass in the event that you wanted to do so. My
remarks need to be tempered by my saying that my first "real" 35mm SLR was a
Nikon F with several great Nikon lenses that was purchase in 1968. At that
time Nikon owned the high end SLR market. They have however managed to
relinquish that position to Canon over the past 40 years or so. So my real
question
is, "Why, if the horse you are riding isn't getting you to the finish line,
would you change to the horse which is in second place when you could mount up
on the lead horse just as easily?" Is there some need to be the underdog
that is driving us to Nikon rather than Canon? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why Nikon rather than Canon? <[8^) Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|