>About point (2): N*k*n also have the exposure (compensation)
>number line running backwards with + at the left and - at the
>right, and it is therefore "standard" in the industry.
Well, I've kept pretty quiet so far, but this is simply fatuous. If being
"standard" (meaning "the same as the largest vendor") is such a lofty goal,
then innovation is in deep trouble. It is rarely the largest who is the
most innovative -- indeed, the biggest often has the most to gain by
*controlling" innovation by parcelling it out on a schedule of planned
innovation, which is one reason the government doesn't let monopolies do
things other companies can do.
By Frank's logic, we should all be communicating with this list via IBM
mainframe computers -- after all, they were the "standard" at about the
same time Nikon established their "standard."
I'd suggest reading the books of Geoffrey Moore, especially "Crossing The
Chasm," which explain in detail the technology adoption life-cycle. He
definitively presents the case that market maturity and innovation are
actually opposing forces. I prefer innovation over maturity.
We all have likes and dislikes and biases, and I can agree with a very few
of your issues, but this is a mailing list of Olympus camera ENTHUSIASTS,
not critics! Frank, why don't you just sell that annoying camera to some
list member and buy a "standard" Nikon and get on with life? You don't
deserve something as special as an OM-4.
To he who has only experienced a hammer, all the world's a nail...
: Jan Steinman <mailto:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068-1331 USA
: +1.503.635.3229
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|