The original post, which was written by I don't remember who right now, when
referring to the fact the E-300 had the "smaller lens mount," meant, and left
it to be understood, that it was the same "smaller lens mount" as on the
preexisting E-1. Admittedly, I assumed, although only for a millisecond, that
the E-300 mount was a smaller yet mount than the smaller E-1 mount, but I
quickly got over that misconception and realized that it was not in fact a
smaller smaller mount but the same smaller size smaller mount, the two smaller
mounts being equally small, i.e., identically smaller, in each or either
instance, as the case may be.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
I'm still holding out, however, and resisting this digital siren song. But I
must admit, it's getting more and more into the "ver-r-r-y interesting" area.
Walt
---
"Progress might have been all
right once, but it's gone on too
long." -- Ogden Nash
-------------- Original message from Winsor Crosby : --------------
>
> It does not have a smaller lens mount. Lens mount size and design are
> part of the 4/3 standard that Olympus has been pushing for years.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
> On Sep 28, 2004, at 12:50 AM, orava@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Almost 24 hours has passed since E-300 was published, but I have not
> > yet heard
> > that does OM-adapter fit into E-300. I suppose it does, but someone
> > mentioned
> > something about a smaller lens mount... So does anyone KNOW yet
> > whether I could
> > use my precious OM-zuikos with E-300? And do they still give the
> > adapter away
> > for free if you buy an E-300?
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|