Actually, the difference is $168. I don't do math well.
And the older I get, the less importance I ascribe to the age of
things. (May have to do with my math disability.) I've got three
plain ol' OM-4s from the early '80s. From an operational
standpoint, they're as good as new and I trust them as much as my
15-month old OM-4Ti that I bought brand new. So if a T and a Ti
are in the same condition, indicating the same amount of use
and/or abuse, I don't think the difference of a couple of years in
age is worth all that much. I think it's more a matter of
perception. Some folks just automatically think newer is better.
That's one reason the world is so full of worthless new crap today.
Walt Wayman
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:18:27 -0600
>At 02:34 PM 3/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>And why the hell is the 4Ti priced $162 more than the 4T when
>>they're the same grade? Looks like some folks -- nobody here,
I'm
>>sure -- are willing to pay more for a 4Ti than a 4T. Why is
>>that? It's the exact same camera, ain't it?
>>
>>Walt Wayman
>
>I would assume that the 4Ti might be newer. A 4T is guaranteed
to be as
>old or older than almost any 4Ti, but a 4Ti could be quite a bit
newer than
>a 4T. You gamble the $162 in that hope, I guess.
>
>Joel W.
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|