On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] P�l Jensen wrote: > But thats not true. The Olympus loook like no other 35mm interchangeable > lens SLR and the design is original Olympus and not a wholsale, > uncritical adoption of the latest Nikon/Canon product.
How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models? Whether the lens is interchangeable or not, people can't tell without close examination. To most people's eyes, this is NOT an original design. We saw it before in Minolta Dimage 7, Nikon Coolpix 5700, FujiFilm S602... And many would even confuse it with its own E10 and E20. > success and influental design has started by someone being unique and > progessive. Yeah, take a E20, make it a bit larger, add a lens mount. And you call that unique? progressive? When people pay $2000+ for a DSLR system with lens, they want it to look like a SLR. They want it to look business; and not a run of the mills ZLR cameras. Judging by the posts in this list, you seem to have a very unique view of what's "original". In my view, I would consider something like Optio S, Dimage X or even Coolpix SQ as original and unique design. When people looked at these cameras at the first glance, they would say "Wow, haven't seen anything like this before." But when people take a look at the Olympus 4/3 DSLR, there is no wow and the design and shape look all so familiar, because they have all seen it before from all the ZLR cameras. -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
