At 11:45 AM 8/6/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>> ... Obviously, I must like it, given the baker's dozen OM bodies I own,
>>but it remains an OM idiosyncrasy. Nothing wrong with that, is there ?
>Indeed not, but it's only idiosyncratic because the others are out of step.
>The point I was trying to make was that the OM-1 was loosely following a
>traditional layout for a shutter dial, albeit that of a leaf shutter. With
>the earlier s.l.rs with their top dials, the visual association of shutter
>speeds and apertures was maintained by the use of the shutter dial coupled
>meters (equivalents of the Leicameter MR), but once t.t.l. metering came in,
>the external meters went, leaving no visual relationship and looking pretty
>silly. The OM-1's design retained it.
>Keith Berry (Birmingham, England)
For me the design had it's greatest benefit when the OM-2 came along and
exposure compensation was accomplished on the ASA dial. Does any system
offer an easier, more useful method of exposure compensation than OM?
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< 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 >