| Subject: | Re: [OM] OM-4T vs. OM-4 as backup body |
|---|---|
| From: | "Kam" <kamm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 May 2000 12:41:43 +0800 |
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:37:21 EDT From: Pauls0627@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: [OM] OM-4T vs. OM-4 as backup body Kam wrote: Is there any reason why we should not consider a mechanical body as a backup? No more battery brain concern, chilled battery ... Regards, Kam Hong Kong < 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 > |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: eBay Names on Acer's website (alphabetized), Gregg |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [OM] Hood for 50/1.2?, Skip Williams |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] OM-4T vs. OM-4 as backup body, Giles |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] OM-4T vs. OM-4 as backup body, Terry and Tracey |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |