on 1/29/02 1:11 PM, Walt Wayman at hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Now a theoretical question: If a fellow has an OM-1n, an OM-3, an
> OM-4 (or three), and an OM-4Ti, is there any conceivable reason
> (except for the tragic compulsion of Zuikoholism that requires the
> acquisition of at least one of everything) to own an OM-2? What
> possibly could an OM-2 do that can't be done, and then some, with
> the 1, 3, 4 or 4Ti? Anyone? Anyone?
You need an even number to preserve the essential symmetry of the universe.
Or just because. There isn't anything an OM-2 can do that the others can't,
but when had need had anything to do with it?
There, now you have two justifications, which is really one more than you
need... get a nice clean OM-2n, you won't regret it.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|