> Let's see if I understood it right… you advocate going with the
> masses? If everyone did that, OM would never have sold.
>
I continue to try to point out that the commercial viability of the E
cameras is doubtful, as Olympus is apparently unable to keep pace with the
two or three large players. The same holds true for Pentax and Samsung, and
probably others I 've forgotten.
I would suggest that, although I do have an emotional attachment to Olympus,
going with the big players is hardly being folded into the masses. It's not
as if they make even just average products, or the many members of this list
that have left the Olympus fold when they went digital wouldn't have.
What it means for me is this: Should I choose to get an Olympus DSLR, I
would spend quite a bit for lenses, many times the price of a body. I would
expect to be able to use those lenses for the life of more than one body,
taking advantage of their quality with improvements in technology. I didn't
mind being left behind with manual focus cameras, as for most things, I
prefer it, but imagine if I were forced to continue shooting with Ektachrome
X and CPS. That would be inexcusable. Remember, too, that while I can still
use my OM1, 2s and 4Ti as if they were brand new, digital cameras will
likely prove to have a short life compared with film cameras.
For me, the Olympus digitals have two things that make them a bad choice for
me, and many, many others: There is questionable long term viability of the
system, and they are most always a generation behind the competition.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|