At 02:25 1/27/00 , Skip Williams wrote:
>Chrome models were then as you describe, typically lesser models, whereas
>the black was sold as pro or at least an alternative. We "all" remember
I've been told two things about the black vs. chrome. Don't know how true
they are but there is some logic in them:
1. The less credible onee: The black will not show up in reflections
(windows, etc.) as readily as chrome. This would undoubtedly be more
concern to commercial or special effects work. You would also have to use
a black tripod, and do a few other things to help conceal the camera in the
reflection, especially the lens.
2. A more credible one: Chrome is a more durable finish than the black
enamel. For collectors a perfect black finish without any brassing means
light use and exceptional care which is more difficult to determine with
chrome.
That said, my 1954 Contax IIIa is chrome and you could have any finish you
wanted as long as it was chrome! I'm more inclined to believe the
"marketing" related to "fashion" or "style" explanation as the object was
(is) to sell cameras, as many as possible at a given price point. The one
exception possibly being currently how well Olympus pushes its OM SLR's <g>.
-- John
< 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 >
|