Ellis Island (?) wrote:
>...However, he had
>two caveats: 1) the OM equipment is surprisingly costly, much more than
>similar vintage Canon, Minolta or even Nikon; 2) he is worried about the
>increasing age of the line and he foresees that day when he will be forced
to
>change to a current system because it will get to be too difficult to get
>reliable OM stuff...
1) The earliest OM-fitting lens will fit the latest OM body without any kind
of conversion needed. The other makes mentioned have at some point
completely changed or at least modified their lens-body fittings, so there
are cut-off dates before when their equipment is less useful and presumably
cheaper.
2) But it IS a current system! It's still being made - or at least sold -
new. Many of its competitors use expensive lenses which have to be scrapped
when their focusing motors wear out. The OM lenses have no such liabilities,
some of mine that I bought a quarter of a century ago are still as good as
new, and the same applies to my original OM-2n body, which has never missed
a beat since I bought in new in the early 'eighties. Replacement equipment,
secondhand, is readily available in many price tiers so there's something
for just about every depth of pocket.
I'd like to say that my starting off with an OM-1 all those years ago was
down to my great judgement and discernment but I have to admit that it was
just a lucky fluke. Knowing what I know now, and if I had to begin all over
again with an SLR outfit, I'd almost certainly go OM again unless I was in
desperate need for autofocus.
Regards,
Keith Berry
(Birmingham, England)
k.berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.keithberry.telinco.co.uk
< 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 >
|