Winsor;
Thanks for finding this site. I looked at his review and it's pretty
accurate for the bodies. And there's lots more of interest there.
However, his thoughts on the lenses were a bit off, I thought.
Anyone else ever notice that "If you shake <a Zuiko>, it rattles like a
child's toy. The aperture rings can have a loose, imprecise feel to
them; I'm always afraid I'm going to break one off."
(I do agree that the 1.4x and 65-116 rattle, that's the ball-bearings.)
He also says "While the Zuiko lenses are good, I cannot in all honesty
say that any of
the ones I've owned have been exceptional. "
Do I hear some boos and hisses?
He then reviews 6 Zuikos, of which only the 50/1.2 is over $75.00 or so
on the used market. He claims the 50/1.4 is the best 50mm Zuiko of
all. This makes me very suspicious of his lens grading procedures.
But he does like the bodies (except the 2S - battery drain; and the 4T -
too complicated.)
George
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> Here is an interesting telescope review site in which the reviewer waxes
> enthusiastic about the OM1/2 system. The only other camera he discusses is
> Leica.
>
> http://www.scopereviews.com/om.html
>
> Winsor
>
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California, USA
> mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|