This kind of thing ticks me off.
As Lee pointed out on the list earlier the OM line of
camera's is still pretty much State Of The Art.
So your a young kid and you don't want to drive your
father's Olympus? What do new camera's have that old
ones don't? Do they have better optics? No. Are they
easier to use? No. Not if you want to control what is
going on. Do they take better pictures? No.
A new camera will have better manufacturer support then
an OM. So what? Many old cameras have proved themselves
to be very rugged and reliable. Unless you make your
living on it, this doesn't matter. (Maybe not even then.)
Comparing a camera to a computer is silly. (I.e. you
wouldn't tell someone to get an old computer.) The basic
technolgy behind a computer (transistors) improves by a
significant amount every six months. The basic
technology (optics) in a camera does not.
If we must be categorized as snobs, then can we at least
agree that we are snobs of something that was really
well made?
Don't get offended. I am through ranting now.
p.s. So are we Oly Heads? Zuiko Heads? Silver Noses?
what?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Further thoughts on technology
Hmm.
When I bought the OM-2S, it was pretty much the
"state-of-the-art" in camera technology at the time. I
definitely didn't want any 15-20 year old technology.
(course,
that would have been '60s cameras...)
Why would somebody starting out with a system NOT pick
the
current technology?
Let's face it, folks, we are snobs. Olympus did a
supurb job of
developing a "cult" following with its products. We're
the
photographic equivelent of "Dead-Heads". But Jerry and
the OM
line are both dead!
AG
< 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 >
|