Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Qualifications

Subject: [OM] Re: Qualifications
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:32:30 -0500
At 10:44 PM 6/28/04, W Shumaker wrote:
>Your right, you should only have to meet the minimum requirements of
>gear after you have been on this list for 6-8 months. Joining this list
>with a OM-2n and 50/1.8 is perfectly acceptable. But after 2 years, you
>should be struggling to find a TTL multi-connector, a 50/1.4 with
>SN>1,100,000 or an OM-3t or 24/shift if you have a rich budget. And by
>then you should have already bagged several OM-4t's.

What?????
Have we also dropped the requirements for the 180/2, 250/2 and 350/2.8 
Elephant Tusks?

Welcome to Zuikoholism at its finest.

-- John Lind

>The exception to that requirement is to spend time actually taking
>photographs rather than listening to the old farts on this list who
>have nothing better to do than argue about silly analog audio gear, or
>some such nonsense. (Since by now their feeble old ears can't hear
>correctly any way, what's the point?) And why are you interested in
>old OM camera gear anyway, the E-1 is out, this list should be
>diminishing...
>
>and by the way, welcome...
>
>Wayne - just trance channelling missing entities for the list. I'll be back
>to normal after some sleep.
>
>At 11:02 PM 6/28/2004, you wrote:
> >Wayne wrote:
> >>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the minimum requirement
> >>for anyone to be on this list was at least 5 OM bodies and to have
> >>either a complete set or 2 each of the lenses in the 24-100mm range,
> >>except for the 90/2, 50/2 or 50/1.2, of which you have to have one of
> >>them or the equivalent Tamron or Vivitar macro, and also excepting the
> >>multitude of 50mm varieties. And at least one telephoto above 100mm
> >>(excluding the 500mm mirror lens and 135/3.5, while the 135/2.8 is OK
> >>but minimal and also including a Tamron 80-200mm zoom or 300/2.8).
> >>Those with an 8mm, 16mm, 18mm, 21/2 or either shift lenses do not have
> >>to meet the 24-100mm lens requirement.
> >
> >Dear god, this reads like something out of the IRS tax code.
> >
> >Anyway, rather than absolute quantities of OM gear owned, I think
> >there needs to be a special allowance for *percentage change* over a
> >given time. When I joined the list I owned a 2N a T20, and 3 lenses.
> >In the seven months since, I've increased that by approximately 150%.
> >And I'm still thinking about an additional 1N and a 50/3.5 macro. . .
> >
> >Welcome, JM!
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >  -- Ross


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz