In reply to Gary Schloss about some list members getting confused about the
recent OM1 as an M1 on eBay. Well I was one of the persons who did get
confused and I do have an M1 in my collection. I still maintain that the
way seller described it was exteremely misleading.
Dinkar Jhalera
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 23:33:43 -0700
From: Gary Schloss <schloss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] OM Leather Fetish, and other Oddities
Dear Zuiks/Zuikettes:
In the last few weeks, there was a lively discussion of all things OM
that are weird and/or wonderful, including the ultimately unsuccessful
auction for the OM-1 "Gold" on eB*y, a variety of color leather clad OM
bodies (were they sold with matching boots and whips? :-)), as well as
some M-1 gear and accessories.
To comply with my promise to contribute some bona fide OM content, let
me invite you to take a look at a couple of those leather perversions,
... uhm, I meant: creations! :-) (All picts average 50-80 KB).
The first one is a hot looking late production OM-1N number in a rich,
luxurious burgundy red. IMHO, this treatment is not too bad, and it
compliments the camera rather nicely. This sample is still in my
collection, i.e. for now it is not for sale.
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_lfrt.jpg
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_rfrt.jpg
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_bk.jpg
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_btm.jpg
The second sample, IMHO, is not as attractive. It's an OM-2N number
clad in alligator patterned leather, in a greenish hue which I refer
to as "toxic green" or "swamp green". This camera is no longer in my
possesion, and I apologize for the poor quality of the picts which were
taken rather hastily, before the camera shipped out.
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om2ngreen_frt.jpg
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om2ngreen_bk.jpg
I solicit your input on what could be done with the Zuikos to make them
look more compatible with the color leather treated chrome OM bodies
(clearly, the mostly black Zuikos don't clash with color leather clad
black bodies, but IMHO they're not a good match for the chrome OM's).
There was also some banter with regard to a recent OM-1 auction on eB*y,
supposedly misrepresented as an M-1. Even though numerous picts clearly
identifying the body as an OM-1 were included in that auction, it seems
that quite a few Zuiks were confused. This led me to believe that some
of the list members may have never seen an M-1. For those of you who
must fill this gap in their Olympus 101 coursework -- pls take a peek
at the following:
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/m1_frt2.jpg
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/m1_bk2.jpg
Finally, a couple of odds and ends. First, another wrinkle in the great
SC vs MC divide. Now, we all remember the rules: (1) if a prime lens
engraving has a capital letter in front of the "Zuiko", as in E.Zuiko,
G.Zuiko, etc., then the lens is SC. (2) if OTOH a prime lens has an
"MC" marking, or no "MC" markings but also no letters in front of
"Zuiko", then the lens is MC.
Well, guess what? I have proof that some SC lenses exist which violate
rule (2). Indeed, pls take a look at the following:
http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/z13535_nof.jpg
This is a late production Zuiko 135mm F3.5. In the past, I was certain
that all 135/3.5 lenses were SC. So, when I first saw the above sample,
I was thrilled. Here was my chance to own the rare, and hence highly
collectible 135/3.5 MC. Heck, it even had some green reflections!
Wrong !!! Sadly, the lens turned out to be SC, and the green reflections
came from an MC filter. Bummer! Anyways, I have since encountered at
least one more 135/3.5 with the same contradictory markings, which means
that we must amend rule (2). Meanwhile, my tireless research continues...
The second oddity some of you may find soooo boring, that even an endless
discussion of 50/1.8 lens variations may excite in comparison. My humble
apologies -- you may want to abort now, or proceed at your own risk. :-)
This topic has to do with the early "silver mose" Zuikos. Take a
look at the lens flange of any of your Zuikos. It is attached to the
lens by means of three Philips screws, right? Well, recently I picked
up an early silver nose Zuiko 100/2.8, serial no. 1040xx. Surprise,
surprise: it has _slotted_ screws. (Exciting, huh? I told you so.)
Now, many manufacturers used slotted screws in their early (and I mean:
EARLY!) lenses, e.g. Nikon, Konica, etc. But OM Zuikos? Nah, they are
too modern, right? Well, clearly I thought so, but apparently I was
wrong: some early OM lens batches were either made for Olympus by someone
else, or were manufactured way, way before the OM bodies were ready.
So, does anyone else have early OM Zuikos with slottes screws? Pls
report. (Yes, I know that all the Pen F/FT Zuikos have slotted screws,
but those are much smaller.)
My final point of reference was my earliest Zuiko, a maaahvelous 85/f2
with a serial no. 100449 -- my only lens from a first production batch
(under 500!!). Well, guess what -- it has Phillips screws! Ahem, this
is a mystery worthy of yours truly, Gary "The OM Sleuth" Schloss.
Hey, hey! Who said: "The OM Slut"?! Wait, m*th*r&%#$%&, I'll get ya!!
:-) :-) <big grin>
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxx
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
< 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 >
|
