I followed a link someone left on the list yesterday or the day before and
read a couple of articles on camera makers. One concerned Olympus, which
the author described as terribly "out of date." Well, maybe it is at that,
but it is also terribly high quality, a concern which is, regrettably,
deemed passe by the vast majority of the buying public around the world.
As for Nikon and Canon: it's quality equipment all right, but since forever
it was all about "ugly" and unnecessarily large and heavy and generally
cumbersome to use. The irony is that while the Olympus line revolutionized
35mm SLR photography back in the 70's, fairly set the industry on its ear,
the company has now chosen to turn its back on this legacy, leaving the
marketplace today to the clumsy, dinosaur-like ways of those companies
which ruled before its advent. All we've done is to effectively move full
circle back to the precise point of our start. But you know, we cannot
blame the public for this one; no, it's entirely on professional
photographers world-wide who refused to (or rather could not) see the light.
God help us.
Tris
I would go with an f3 as it is the camera that seem
(to me at least) that it looks a lot like an Olympus
in features and shape. The new top of the line Canons
just look kinda ridiculous features wise, and they are
sooo plasticky. Plasticky lenses too. of course I'm
biased agains Canon when I tried one out a couple of
yoears ago, I hated it. And the newest top of the
line Nikon, The F5, is just ugly to my eyes. So if I
had to go with something else I'd choose Nikon MF
cause the older Nikon lenses are really nice.
Mark Lloyd
|