New Oly DSLR?

In article <37me4cF4oel87U1.RemoveThis@individual.net>, Knild says...

 > No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point in
 > putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the Oly
 > crew for their trouble.
 >
 > So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice of
 > the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1

Olympus should launch sooner or later a pro version of the E300,
although I haven't heard anything about it so far.

By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/</a>
Olympus E300 resource - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://myolympus.org/E300/" target="_blank">http://myolympus.org/E300/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

"Knild" <knild DeleteThis @venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net...
 >
 > "Barry Bean" <bbbean DeleteThis @beancotton.com> wrote in message
 > news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
  >> Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
  >> new
  >> Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
 >
 > No announcement.

You think they'll ever build a sports/PJ camera to challenge the Canon 1D or
the Nikon equiv?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

"Knild" <knild.RemoveThis@venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net...
 >
 > "Barry Bean" <bbbean.RemoveThis@beancotton.com> wrote in message
 > news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
  > > Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
new
  > > Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
 >
 > No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
in
 > putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the
Oly
 > crew for their trouble.
 >
 > So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice
of
 > the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1


While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor ugly.
And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not "outdated",
except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
outside.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

In article <2tadnbUbyrHE1YvfRVn-tw.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, xxpaulhtck.DeleteThis@zzcomcast.yycom
says...
 > While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
 > attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor ugly.
 > And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not "outdated",
 > except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
 > outside.
 >


I get a kick (and a LOT of entertainment) out of those who complain about
PLASTIC and BRAND.

The so called plastic used in most Digital cameras is a tough resin designed
to take as much abuse as steel without distorting or cracking. (and it doesnt
get brittle in the cold until the temperature is to low for YOU to bear)

Yes, there are some cheap plastic cameras (for instance think about the
broken battery doors on all the Kodaks we have seen complaints about) but the
plastic used on these larger more expensive cameras is some pretty tuff stuff
and for MOST purposes at least as strong as it needs to be.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c803ce6f7ba0cb998a9dc@news.supernews.com:

 > By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.

Yes, it is.

--

Bill<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

  >> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
 >
 > Yes, it is.
 >

Why would it matter?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c803ce6f7ba0cb998a9dc@news.supernews.com...
 > In article <37me4cF4oel87U1.RemoveThis@individual.net>, Knild says...
 >
  >> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
  >> in
  >> putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the
  >> Oly
  >> crew for their trouble.
  >>
  >> So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice
  >> of
  >> the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1
 >
 > Olympus should launch sooner or later a pro version of the E300,
 > although I haven't heard anything about it so far.
 >
 > By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
 > --
 >
 > Alfred Molon


Sorry Alfred - I've seen your galleries and they're terrific, I've read some
of your articles and they're very knowledgeable - but, while beauty is
always in the eye of the beholder, in the eye of this particular beholder
the 300 looks like a cheap & nasty plastic digicam.

What is intriguing is your suggestion that the next Oly will be a
development of the 300, rather than (as everyone seems to expect) a specced
up E-1. You could be right, and it would be fascinating to see what they do
to improve the 300.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

Barry Bean <bbbean DeleteThis @beancotton.com> wrote in
news:Xns960186EA44C67eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17:

 > Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
 > news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
 >
   >>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
  >>
  >> Yes, it is.
  >>
 >
 > Why would it matter?
 >

It matters to some; not to others. Nonetheless, it is a factor.

--

Bill<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

On 18 Feb 2005 19:15:28 GMT, Barry Bean <bbbean RemoveThis @beancotton.com> wrote:

 >Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
 >news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
 >
   >>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
  >>
  >> Yes, it is.
 >
 >Why would it matter?

Pictures of models with disgusted looks on their face don't sell well?

....continuing that idea, all pro studio cameras should be bright pink.

--
Owamanga!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

Owamanga <nomail.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> writes:

 > On 18 Feb 2005 19:15:28 GMT, Barry Bean <bbbean.TakeThisOut@beancotton.com> wrote:
 >
  > >Woodchuck Bill <bwr607.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
  > >news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
  > >
   > >>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
   > >>
   > >> Yes, it is.
  > >
  > >Why would it matter?
 >
 > Pictures of models with disgusted looks on their face don't sell well?

I dunno, half the model shots I see, the model seems to be sneering at the
camera. A turnoff IMHO, but perhaps others think of it as 'sophistication'.
Of course, there are probably men out there that never notice the models face.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews.TakeThisOut@the-meissners.org
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.the-meissners.org" target="_blank">http://www.the-meissners.org</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck.RemoveThis@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
news:2tadnbUbyrHE1YvfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
 >
 > "Knild" <knild.RemoveThis@venturenet.com> wrote in message
 > news:37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net...
  >>
  >> "Barry Bean" <bbbean.RemoveThis@beancotton.com> wrote in message
  >> news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
   >> > Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
 > new
   >> > Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
  >>
  >> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
 > in
  >> putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the
 > Oly
  >> crew for their trouble.
  >>
  >> So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice
 > of
  >> the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1
 >
 >
 > While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
 > attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor ugly.
 > And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not "outdated",
 > except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
 > outside.


The 300 is entirely acceptable - as a digicam. It's distinctly less
convincing as a DSLR

..All this is pointless, however, in 12 months I predict that new Canon 350
will have so completely captured the lower end of the market that
aberrations like the Oly 300 will have been forgotten by all except those
unfortunate enough to have actually bought one.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8017734d849bc39896bc@news.individual.NET...
 > In article <2tadnbUbyrHE1YvfRVn-tw RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
 > xxpaulhtck RemoveThis @zzcomcast.yycom
 > says...
  >> While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
  >> attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor
  >> ugly.
  >> And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not
  >> "outdated",
  >> except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
  >> outside.
  >>
 >
 >
 > I get a kick (and a LOT of entertainment) out of those who complain about
 > PLASTIC and BRAND.
 >
 > The so called plastic used in most Digital cameras is a tough resin
 > designed
 > to take as much abuse as steel without distorting or cracking. (and it
 > doesnt
 > get brittle in the cold until the temperature is to low for YOU to bear)
 >
 > Yes, there are some cheap plastic cameras (for instance think about the
 > broken battery doors on all the Kodaks we have seen complaints about) but
 > the
 > plastic used on these larger more expensive cameras is some pretty tuff
 > stuff
 > and for MOST purposes at least as strong as it needs to be.


I agree with you to a certain extent - but that is mostly because of the
rapid obsolescence of cameras.

Take the E-!, superb build, first class finish, wonderful alloy
construction, etc. BUT, ever advancing technology has turned it into a
dinosaur, what's the point of paying for superb build quality if the sensor,
processor, LCD, etc, are sub-standard in a couple of years time?

Sometimes it's best to treat these things as semi-disposable items and avoid
wasting money on expensive magnesium alloy that just ends up wrapping
obsolete electronics.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR? 

In article <37n1gmF5dhmstU1.RemoveThis@individual.net>, knild.RemoveThis@venturenet.com says...
 >
 > I agree with you to a certain extent - but that is mostly because of the
 > rapid obsolescence of cameras.
 >
 > Take the E-!, superb build, first class finish, wonderful alloy
 > construction, etc. BUT, ever advancing technology has turned it into a
 > dinosaur, what's the point of paying for superb build quality if the sensor,
 > processor, LCD, etc, are sub-standard in a couple of years time?
 >
 > Sometimes it's best to treat these things as semi-disposable items and avoid
 > wasting money on expensive magnesium alloy that just ends up wrapping
 > obsolete electronics.
 >
 >
 >


That is (partially) what I meant.

The plastic is at LEAST strong enough to take the knocks of daily use, and
COULD last as long as the owner of the camera, but since most of us geeks
tend to upgrade every couple of years WHATS THE ISSUE????

It seems to me that the feeling comes from how people might feel when they
see you camera... Im far more concerned how they feel when they see the
pictures.

As far as Im concerned beauty is in the eye of the guy writing the check for
that set of prints I just delivered.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: New Oly DSLR?