On 09/02/2012 17:04, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Hehe -- and the TOP reviewer was afraid of sounding jaundiced. ;^)
>
> I'm TRYING to be a good boy. Really I am. But seeing others take a
> similar, guarded stance means that I'm not alone. Even Kirk Tuck, in
> his RAH RAH piece did a tiny "we'll see" in there.
>
> The camera better have the imaging chops to back up those fancy features.
>
> It will either be the best $1000 camera on the market or a footnote in
> the Wikipedia page on a company that used to be known as Olympus.
>
> Rats. I couldn't quite make it through this email...
>
> AG
I'm tempted to say 'they'll never be able to hold that price', but they
have (more or less) with the E-5, which should be half its current cost.
Pretty camera though, with some nice touches, like the five-way IS and
nifty grip/battery holder. And enough pixels for an amateur/enthusiast,
unless they're kidding themselves.
If it was 750UKP body only, I'd be pushed to pass it up.
D.
--
I'm a Mac, but I'm happy with my PC.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|