Thanks George, the 1 would have the advantage, since all others are
electric. Later, JOhn.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:03:09 EST ClassicVW@xxxxxxx writes:
> Well, I reread your question and I guess I'm confusing 'backpacking'
> with a
> previous discussion of 'rock climbing', which is why I was talking
> about its
> toughness and being careful not to drop it. The OM-G would be fine
> for
> backpacking, but still with the previous warning against rough use.
> It
> definitely feels more 'plasticky', When I mentioned the OM-1 it was
> because
> (to me) it feels like it was sculpted from a single piece of metal,
> it gives
> you great confidence in its durability, and it has no electronics to
> get out
> of whack if it is banged around a bit. The 'electronic' OMs
> understandably
> seem to be more sensitive to abuse. The weight of all OMs are more
> or less in
> the same ballpark; IMO, any weight difference wouldn't matter all
> that much
> to a backpacker. Lenses, OTOH, vary greatly in size and weight and
> should be
> more of a consideration.
>
> Best,
> George S.
>
> > Thanks George. Is the OM1 tougher than the OM2n? I believe the 1
> is ten
> > grams lighter than the OM2n. Not much, but something. John.
> >
> >
>
>
>^..^<
MAGGIE
LIVES!!!
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
< 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 >
|