On 4 Mar 2003 at 13:33, Lawrence Kwan wrote: > In case you did not realize, those comments are directed to Pal. I was > just puzzled how he can write off *ist D based on its looks. Pal stated > that *ist D styling was unoriginal, unimaginative, non-sexy and > derivative; and therefore it has no chance to succeed.
I appreciate that you have an on going war with Pal. > My point is that Olympus 4/3 SLR is just as unoriginal, unimaginative, > non-sexy and derivative. Yet, Pal is raving it as a true professional > system. > I personally thinks Pentax *ist D looks way better than the Olympus, and > more like a real SLR rather than Olympus' ZLR look. I believe that it is quite original in design and function, granted its design doesn't preserve the look that was born of the need to provide an unimpeded film path. Why should it? Just to look "like" a "real" SLR? If you owned an E camera I suspect that you would appreciate it's interface beyond what it looks like (and I know this is part of you beef with Pal, no offence intended but I suspect that citing the E series bodies as a non- professional system shows how little you know about their market penetration and acceptance). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
