crud indeed.... makes one want to 'rip one' in his general direction....
___________________________________
John Hermanson
Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743
631-424-2121 | Olympus OM Service since 1977
http://www.zuiko.com | omtech1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove 'spam' when writing
Jay Drew wrote:
> Here's a snippet of crud from the 35mm newsgroup that is in the thread
> "mourning Minolta"
>
> Crud Beginnith
>
> Despite the technological advances Olympus made (they were the only
> company besides Leitz to engineer a damped mirror movement, for which
> reason the Leicaflexes needed no mirror lock-up), its entry into the
> SLR fray was ultimately doomed. The cameras simply came to the party
> too late, about 10 years after even Leica's belated entry. The fact is
> that N*kon owned the pro SLR marketplace, and Olympus simply did not
> have a pro camera. Pros did not need smaller SLR's (quite the
> contrary!) and OM-1's were no match for N*kons or Leicaflexes in
> durability. The Olympus lens line contained some lenses that were so
> small that men (the primary buyers of SLR's) had trouble handing them.
> I know I dropped an Olympus lens at least once while demonstrating it!
> The reduced size of the lenses was accomplished by sacrificing strength
> and durability: you could make an Olymus lens bind easily by squeezing
> the focussing ring, something that was more difficult to do with a
> Nikkor and all but impossible to do with a Leica reflex lens.
>
> I prefer the size of Leicaflex SL or SL2 camera to the bulky Nikon F or
> the diminutive OM-1.
>
> Crud endith
>
> *********
>
> I have to admit, the only 35mm SLR I've ever owned has been OM gear. As
> such I don't have the experience to say how strong the bodies were compared
> to the competition. I bought my OM-1 in 1977 because it WAS SMALL. I have
> normal hands (at the last time I took a peek I was of the male gender) and I
> didn't have a problem with handling Zuiko lenses. And I does anyone have an
> idea of what strength you need to squeeze a focusing ring to make it bind?
>
> There are a few things that were dumb in the OM line in my opinion:
> 1. The motor drive cover on the OM1 and OM2 is a joke.
> 2. The flimsy hot shoe.
> 3. As a right handed fellow, would have liked the film speed (and thus the
> compensation dial) on the left hand side of the camera on the OM2. You
> southpaws can tell me otherwise.
> 4. Would have been nice to have the Fstop indicated in the viewfinder with
> the shutter speed, although I admit that I would not like to sacrifice the
> size of the viewfinder to get it.
>
> Offset those 4 peeves with a whole lot that Olympus got right and I say I
> chose correctly way back when.
>
> Jay
>
> Hand me my costume
> Please won't you pass me my mask
> I have appointments I must keep with my past.
>
> Bill Nelson - Beauty Secrets
>
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/x-vcard
-- File: omtech1.vcf
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|