Subject: | Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 28, 24, 21, 20mm |
---|---|
From: | Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:06:20 -0500 |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Looks like your ego had one of those big Iowa truckstop breakfasts. ;^) >> > > > LOL. Rockwell isn't the only Ken that shapes global photographic equipment > demands. > > Don't forget, that an almost single-handed effort on my part kept the OM-2S > from completely falling into a disrespected has-been pile. For quite some > time the 2S was being dissed left and right and I alone stepped out in > praise of the camera to raise it up to its rightful place. I took some > flaming arrows on that until one by one others spoke up and agreed that the > camera had some worth. I think there are a few list-members that will back > that up as they wouldn't touch the camera and now it's among their > favorites. > > AG (it ain't bragging if you can back it up) Schnozz You do go out on a few limbs from time to time. As long as the children stay back, the innocent go unharmed. ;^) Joel W. -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Off-topic: Spotted Technorama for a good price, Ken Norton |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Ugh! Yes, it can get worse, Chuck Norcutt |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 28, 24, 21, 20mm, Ken Norton |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 28, 24, 21, 20mm, Ken Norton |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |