"When I bought OM in the '70s it was because it was smaller, lighter and
cheaper. It seems that Olympus has
lost its way on small, light and cheap."
Smaller and lighter, definitely. But hardly cheaper. Zuikos were quite
expenisve. And the dealer got only a 35% discount. *
The Olympus ads for the Four-Thirds SLRs (I own an E-500) are comical. Even
the smallest is substantially larger than a (motor-driveless) OM, and the
lenses are (by comparison) positively Brobdingnagian.
"I myself would rather see less pixels and better noise performance."
The 5D mk II apparently offers both. Noise is not determined solely by pixel
area. I'm wondering when sensor design will eventually bump into the laws of
physics, and no further meaningful improvement will be possible.
A comment about English grammar... The principal difference, as I see it, is
that English is nowhere nearly as inflected a language as most others. For
example, in some languages (such as German) you can say what, in English,
would be "The fish ate the woman", but the declensions indicate that it is
actually the woman doing the eating. There is simply less one has to learn
about how an English sentence is to be constructed.
* At that time, Olympus was imported by Ponder & Best -- I think. If so,
there would have been additional discounts for quantity purchases.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|