--- Bill Pearce <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My provious point was that cameras are no longer
> designed for professional
> photographers. They're designed for affluent
> amateurs. But if cameras were
> designed after what pros really think they want, we
> would still be shooting
> Rolleiflexes or Nikon SP's.
Is this really true? It would seem that for each
photographic generation that there are those people
who buy equipment based its "professional"
designation. When I became interested in photography
in the late 60's these persons could be seen with
their pristine Nikon Ftn's, black of course' with
attached 50mm f1.4s and nikon metal lens hood. The
cameras were always unmarked and looked like they
hadn't had more than 2 rolls of film ran through them.
Although we often snickered at them they preformed a
valuable service, as the next generation of pro
cameras arrived we could purchase their nearly new
condition equipment at bargen prices as they cast it
off in an attempt to always have the latest and
greatest. When Olympus introduced the OM system they
sold like hotcakes. Some went to serious users but a
much larger quanity went to casual shooters who kept
the equiptment for only a short time and then traded
it in, thus a lively and well stocked used market
sprung up soon after they were introduced. Good for us
even to this day. John Robison
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|