It is "unfortunate" that cameras are practical objects that also are
high-tech products that excite one's techno-aesthetic sense. (Burt
Keppler has even admitted that there's no harm in buying cameras and
lenses to fondle, just as people buy guns they never shoot and plates
they never serve food on.) So it's not surprising that Olympus and other
companies produce cameras intended as collectibles. Heck, it keeps Leica
going even though the photographic demand for RF cameras is small.
It is, however, unfortunate that the desirability of the OM-3Ti as a
collectible has jacked up its price to a point where many of those who
want to use it to actually take pictures (!) can't afford it or can't
justify the cost.
By the way, Burt Keppler once told me that, over the past 20 years,
sales of SLRs has declined drastically, owing largely to the
introduction of high-quality P&S cameras. The result is that it is
increasingly difficult for any given model to maintain its viability.
This may also explain why there are so many new models -- they encourage
new sales.
The lack of autofocus _seems_ to doom the OM system to eventual "death,"
though the time of such passing "no man can say." (Would someone more
familiar with the Bible give me the exact verse, please? Please reply
privately.) In practice, I find autofocus to be relatively useless. With
normal and wide lenses, it's usually faster (and less distracting) to
focus manually. (Autofocus can be of great advantage when shooting
action shots, especially with long lenses.) It's a shame that most users
won't buy a camera that's missing a feature they rarely need.
< 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 >
|