 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Kodak screws Olympus! Oh my God!
At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and the E-400 got the shaft. Back to the drawing board for Olympus. Supposedly, 3 new DSLRs and the E-3 are on the way. > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and > the E-400 got the shaft. Back to the drawing board for Olympus. > Supposedly, 3 new DSLRs and the E-3 are on the way. Source of your rumor?  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >> They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and >> the E-400 got the shaft. Back to the drawing board for Olympus. >> Supposedly, 3 new DSLRs and the E-3 are on the way. > >Source of your rumor? Kodak??? I thought the E-400 had a Panasonic sensor. SignatureJohn Bean > > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and > > the E-400 got the shaft. Back to the drawing board for Olympus. > > Supposedly, 3 new DSLRs and the E-3 are on the way. > > Source of your rumor? Olympus America. >> > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >> > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Olympus America. Could you back that up? A URL? > Could you back that up? A URL? Are you kidding? Asking Rich to document his effluence? >> Could you back that up? A URL? > > Are you kidding? Asking Rich to document his effluence? That would be a first. >>>At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >>>They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Olympus America. The word in the informed trade circles of the UK is that Olympus previewed the 400D in the USA, were told by their US executives that the camera was too small for their customers' tastes (big being good in the USA), and therefore chose to sell it in Europe only where people prefer small products (small being good in Europe). Apparently no other reason, given that their sales projections indicated the initial run would sell out in either region before Christmas and launching in both would just have created dissatisfaction with delivery levels and retail presence. David > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and > the E-400 got the shaft. Back to the drawing board for Olympus. > Supposedly, 3 new DSLRs and the E-3 are on the way. "It is therefore no secret that the new CCD image sensor in the E-400 is provided by Panasonic." The above can be found at http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=98892 Once again, you posted sensational stuff with no sources. You are really a tiresome twit. >You are really a >tiresome twit. I wouldn't use those exact (mild) words but I do echo the sentiment. SignatureJohn Bean > > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Once again, you posted sensational stuff with no sources. You are really a > tiresome twit. What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. > What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. Hey, blow as you like ... post a reference ... a'hole. >> > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >> > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. You pulled it out of your a.s. >>> > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no >>> > more. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You pulled it out of your a.s. Hence the "blowhard" ;-) My Nephew is a manager at Kodak Hemel Hempstead and has told me that i is not a kodak ccd in the E-400 He does however consider what RichA has stated to be slanderous and ha noted down this link to show it to Kodaks Solicitors We will see what develops(no pun intended) in the future If you wish to contact him RichA with a full explanation on you behaviour, he can be contacted at Chris Wright, Marketing Manager UK and Ireland. Address: PO Box 66 Station Road, Hemel Hempstead, Herts HP1 1J -- Flyingbull > He does however consider what RichA has stated to be slanderous and has > noted down this link to show it to Kodaks Solicitors. It is slander and perhaps this time he has gone too far. > > He does however consider what RichA has stated to be slanderous and has > > noted down this link to show it to Kodaks Solicitors. > > It is slander and perhaps this time he has gone too far. Somehow, even if someone of your character went running off to Kodak and reported it, if there is any truth to it, do you think they'd open themselves up to scrutiny about it? Sorry Eddie Haskell, you'll have to find some other snake-like way to amuse yourself. >> > He does however consider what RichA has stated to be slanderous and has >> > noted down this link to show it to Kodaks Solicitors. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sorry Eddie Haskell, you'll have to find some other snake-like way to > amuse yourself. Slander is a serious issue. Some Canadians, who know so much more about geography, could have a rude awakening. >>> > He does however consider what RichA has stated to be slanderous and has >>> > noted down this link to show it to Kodaks Solicitors. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Slander is a serious issue. Some Canadians, who know so much more about >geography, could have a rude awakening. I know that Americans believe it's a God-given right to obtain money via lawsuits. All I see on New York local TV are ads by shysters hocking lawsuit potential for everything from car accidents to drug trials that went bad. Somehow, I didn't realize the English could be as disgusting. > I know that Americans believe it's a God-given right to obtain money > via lawsuits. All I see on New York local TV are ads by shysters > hocking lawsuit potential for everything from car accidents to drug > trials that went bad. Somehow, I didn't realize the English could be > as disgusting. Given that you live across a single border, you know surprisingly little about your southern neighbor. I have been to Canada numerous times and know that you are very atypical. I really like the Canadians that I have met and respect them and am glad to have them as northern neighbors. (Bunches of them here in SW FL, by the way, but they are of course senile old farts, which you disdain). You do not represent your country at all and, in fact, you do not represent the human race (at least the part which contributes something ... anything). Your recent Kodak slam (totally erroneous, by the way) should get very interesting. Rumor has it that you might be in deep sh.t. New York lawyers are among the most vicious (and most skilled) in the world and Kodak has several on retainer to deal with issues such as you have raised. Good luck ... you are going to need it! > > I know that Americans believe it's a God-given right to obtain money > > via lawsuits. All I see on New York local TV are ads by shysters [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > interesting. Rumor has it that you might be in deep sh.t. New York lawyers > are among the most vicious (and most skilled) in the world New York lawyers? Is that "code" for Jews? > ... > New York lawyers > are among the most vicious (and most skilled) in the world > ... There's no such thing as "lawyers that are most skilled in the _world_". >>> > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >>> > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >You pulled it out of your a.s. Suuurrrrreee I did. Lets just watch what unfolds at Olympus. And you know what? Even if events bear out what I've said, you pathetic clods will do one of two things: 1. Pretend it's due to some other reason. 2. Pretend you never contradicted what I said I heard. Lets SEE what happens when those 2000 (1000 already sold) E-400s are burned off. > What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. Cite exact source, quote exact material, with links. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. > > Cite exact source, quote exact material, with links. Don't jump into something in the middle and expect to comment lucidly. There ARE no links. An Olympus America rep told me personally at a recent photography show. As for the rep. I didn't see a name tag and I didn't inquire. But, they did (unlike the stores) have all the Olympus glass which is one reason I went to the show. >>>What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But, they did (unlike the stores) have all the Olympus glass which is > one reason I went to the show. I responded to you very soon after your first post to ask for your references. You had none. I asked again, as clearly as possible. Again you have nothing. You continue to reinforce everyone's opinion of you as at best a crackpot and at worst a troll. >>>>What I stated came directly from Olympus you old blowhard. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You continue to reinforce everyone's opinion of you as at best a crackpot > and at worst a troll. Worse than that, he is a slanderous troll. Rumor has it that the maligned party will be taking him to court. > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and > the E-400 got the shaft. Back to the drawing board for Olympus. > Supposedly, 3 new DSLRs and the E-3 are on the way. I understand that only a complete moron will ask for a link or reference on something that is clearly labeled as a rumor, so I won't. But there's still an obvious issue of the CCD supplier mismatch. How do you explain the fact that E-400 is known to use Panasonic's sensor, yet your rumor says it's Kodak? >> At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >> They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that > E-400 is known to use Panasonic's sensor, yet your rumor says it's Kodak? Next Rich will be telling us that he heard from Canon that the new 1DsMIII will be using a 22MP Sony sensor. Onya Rich, your moronosity knows no limits. > >> At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > >> They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > will be using a 22MP Sony sensor. Onya Rich, your moronosity knows no > limits. What if a Canon guy tells me that? BTW; According to Canon at the show, a replacement/upgrade for the 1DsMkII is not far in the offing, also, a 40D with a higher pixel count than the 30. Nikon would not deny or confirm a FF is on the way. >> >> At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >> >> They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 1DsMkII is not far in the offing, also, a 40D with a higher pixel count > than the 30. Nikon would not deny or confirm a FF is on the way. All common knowledge. > > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. > > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > obvious issue of the CCD supplier mismatch. How do you explain the fact that > E-400 is known to use Panasonic's sensor, yet your rumor says it's Kodak? Two days ago, someone said the Panasonic source has never been proven. Now you say it's a fact. Where does that come from? P.S. What possible reason would the Olympus guy have for saying "Kodak?" Does Olympus keep their underlings that clued-out? >> > At least that's the rumour. The brand new Olympus E-400 is no more. >> > They made 2000 of them, Kodak, the CCD supplier F------ up somehow and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > possible reason would the Olympus guy have for saying "Kodak?" Does > Olympus keep their underlings that clued-out? I guess he just realised you are a moron and treated you as such. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.