Bill Pearce wrote:
>> the price difference between the D3 and the D300 is pretty
>> substantial. Apparently Nikon decided not to skimp on the LCD. It
>> really is a marvel.
>>
> They are amazing, sometimes a bit too good. I've examined both of mine, and
> I think the screens come out of the same box. If there is a difference, it's
> only the glass.
>
Isn't that the only difference that matters for the subject at hand?
Sounds like a classic marketing problem. I have a product that needs
protection, so I include protection with it - unlike most makers.
Then I find a solution that obviates the original need for protections.
It's more expensive than the separate protection, but I proudly put it
on my flagship product. Instead of appreciation, I get brickbats from
the Yahoos.
I don't know that the above is exactly true, but it rings true:
- Nikon has generally been one of the more honest and forthcoming of
manufacturers.
- Nikon admitted the softness of their LCDs and included protection with
each camera.
- They include protection for the new modestly priced model but not for
new the expensive flagship.
- They say the flagship doesn't need it.
Where's John Cameron Swayze* when they need him?
A. Logical Moose
* Swayse in the UK and outposts of Empire?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|