on 2/12/03 11:05 AM, Skip Williams at om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> IMO, the OM-1 is NOT up to the standards or solidity of an M2 or M3. If you
> haven't put the two side-by-side, you definitely don't notice the difference
> that the OM-1's ligher construction makes. Yes, the OM1's very nice, but it's
> no M3. Evaluated separately, you can be fooled into thinking that they are
> similar in perceived build-quality and feel, IME.
>
> Skip
My subjective (!) observations:
My old Leicas (IIIf and IIIg) and the older M-series cameras I've handled
remind me of camera bodies carved out of a lump of metal. The 'touch' of
them feels like holding a solid object. The knobs and buttons move and turn,
but there is no flex, no wiggle in the motions.
OM's, while expertly crafted, do not have this same 'perceived solidness' to
them... neither do the Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentax's, Fujica's, etc
that I've handled. Most of the older Japanese designs (mentioned above)
still feel much more robust than newer plastic wunderbricks I've handled
(cheaper Canon EOS system, Minolta Maxxum, etc.) although the high-end
wunderbricks (EOS 1v, Maxxum 9, Nikon F5) feel the same as the older SLR's
-- that might be due to having metal frame construction instead of
polycarbonate guts.
The Leica R8 I handled felt more solid than the metal wunderbricks, but not
as solid as the older Leicas... and I don't think the M6's that I've handled
felt as solid as the M2's, M3's, and M4's. I would buy a Leica just for the
craftsmanship and construction quality, but to me the pinnacle was the M4...
after that they weren't 'built' any more so much as 'assembled'.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, 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 >
|