----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Fildes" <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:06 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: New Assessment of M8 by a Pro
>
> What camera is not junk compared with its ancestors? You'd need to
> compare it with an M7 to be fair.
Is Cdn$3600 a reasonable price? See here:
http://www.thecamerastore.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=26761
jh
> No-one could afford to make an M3 any more - even Leica cheapened it
> down a bit (rangefinder mechanism) in subsequent models. That's why a
> nice one still costs more than an E-520 with all the trimmings. And
> don't even mention the near mint black M4 I saw the other day - I'll
> start sobbing.
> Would you compare a D300 with an F or F2 or FTn? (Absolute tanks)
> A Canon D40 with an early body like my Canonflex?
> A Sony A700 with a Minolta SRT?
> A K20D with a Spotmatic?
> Each of them represent a different world of engineering. The body
> shape and function is the same but everything inside and out is of a
> different standard. I once stripped down the top deck of a late
> 1950's Ricoh 519 and was blown away by the design of the rangefinder
> - a big, solid, cemented double element with a semi-silvered mirror
> on the angled interface. Hardly surprising that a clean one works as
> well as the day it was born.
> Andrew Fildes (who works both better and worse than the day he was
> born).
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 14/06/2008, at 10:28 AM, John Hudson wrote:
>
>> I'd bet that the M8 is a piece of 21st century junk compared to the
>> M3 of
>> old.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|