Pulled from its context, it's flame bait. The writer otherwise seems
generally favorably disposed toward the OM system, though generally no more
than superficially informed at it. The comment about the "chintzy plastic
construction" is simply wrong.
As for people who shake lenses in the first place, it reminds me of a story
about Pablo Casals, who was judging a cello performance. The piece called
for the performing cellist at one point to whack the side of his cello with
the bow. After which Casals said to the performer, "You are not a nice man."
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
At 12:40 AM 4/14/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>==start quote==
>All of the smaller Zuiko lenses (the 200 mm f/4 on down) share the same
>chintzy plastic construction. If you shake one, it rattles like a child's
>toy. The aperture ring has a loose, imprecise feel to it; I'm always
>afraid I'm going to break one off. Ditto for the spindly little
>depth-of-field preview button. At their price levels, you cannot expect
>Zeiss or Leitz quality from the Zuiko lenses, but they could have been
>designed with more ruggedness in mind.
>==end quote==
>
>Anyone else agree or disagree? I've yet to /see/ a Zeiss/Leitz lens, let
>alone use one. Since I don't have the comparison, the Zuikos I have seem
>sturdy enough.
>
>Quoted from
>
>http://members.aol.com/eting/om.html
>
>/Acer V
>--
>If you can kick it, it's hardware.
>If you boot it, it's the OS.
>If after you boot it you want to kick it, it's Windows.
>
>
>
>< 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 >
|