The ME and ME super were amateur models.
Pentax went for a step up in size with their follow-up model, the Super A.
Citeren John Hermanson <omtech1@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I remember handling the Pentax ME and was not impressed. Sure, it was
> smaller than an OM-1, but it seemed to go smaller for smalls sake, with
> no gain in handling. Body felt like it could be twisted out of shape if
> you wanted. There were fans of this body, I'm sure, but it seemed like
> one-upmanship with no payoff.
> 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
> Brian Swale wrote:
> > Joel wrote
> >>LOL! I remember reading a comment on the N*kon list once by a *woman*
> >>who said that Olympus cameras and lenses are too small and that the
> >>additional weight of the N*kon made it easier to handhold more
> >>I do think my N*kons are more durable than my OMs. But I don't know
> >>if anyone makes a more durable DSLR than the E-1 though.
> >>Joel W.
> > Well, here's my penny-worth. Anyone who has studied elementary physics
> > (weight, mass, work etc) will know about the effect of inertia and the
> > mechanism of conservation of energy where items of very unequal mass are
> > concerned.
> > This is what is in operation here.
> > A few weeks back I reported on what a close friend and knowledgeable
> > amateur photographer of some ability of some 35 years' standing said to
> > when we discussed this topic. It was the era when Pentax produced one
> > small SLR about the size and weight of an OM-1. My friend Dave had the
> > loan of one of these Pentaxes for a week or more, and ran about 20 rolls
> > film through it. Not only did he have problems getting his fingers on the
> > necessary controls (they were too small, and being at that time engaged
> > demandingly physical work he had strong, quite solid hands with thick
> > fingers), but most of the frames were so blurred that he threw away all
> of the
> > 20 rolls. He then bought Minolta which he has stayed with since then.
> > Happily and with no regrets.
> > If there is vibration from one or more sources in a camera, and if, when
> > comparing the mass (weight) of the component causing the vibration with
> > rest of the camera, it is relatively large, then all other things being
> equal the
> > camera with the relatively smaller vibrating component will yield sharper
> > images.
> > The heavier body has more inertia, therefore the source of vibration will
> > it less.
> > To use an automotive analogy, in case what I am saying is too abstruse,
> > imagine a Greyhound bus hit by a BMC mini cooper car. It probably
> > move the Greyhound around too much. Imagine now the same bus impacted
> > at the same relative speeds by a Hummer. The Greyhound would be in bad
> > shape due to the greater size of the relatively larger moving component.
> > This is one reason why I have a winder attached to my OM4Ti. Since my
> > arms are now quite light, I figure that the extra mass of the winder will
> aid in
> > IS when taking hand-held shots.
> > This matter is probably one of the reasons why the mirror is so small in
> > E-1. Small mirror, less vibration.
> > Exacta cameras were also relatively heavy.
> > Brian
> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
> -- Type: text/x-vcard
> -- File: omtech1.vcf
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
Tele2 Mobiel: nu gratis nummerbehoud bij bestelling via internet
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx