[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OM size vs small RFs, was Relative costs ...

Subject: [OM] Re: OM size vs small RFs, was Relative costs ...
From: "John A. Lind" <jalind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:28:35 -0500
At 07:28 AM 4/27/2005, Rick Beckrich wrote:

>Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  ....I got to thinking: with a 35 or 50 attached, the OM bodes
>>are as small as the rangefinders. I write this because I keep lusting
>>after a 35mm rangefinder....
>Actually, I started with OMs because they felt so much like the L**** IIIf
>I had been using for years. Recently I've backslid into the RF trap again.
>First with old Russian stuff, than added two CV Bessa (L & R).   Rick

It's the reason I've kept the Z-I Contax IIIa and Rollei 35S.  Neither sit 
pretty on a shelf; both are periodically used.  There are times when an 
SLR, 35mm OM or MF M645, just doesn't feel like the right tool for the task 
and one or the other of them is put to use.  Been tempted a couple of times 
to sell one or the other, but thinking about how both of them have simply 
felt better suited (and are likely to continue to) has always squelched the 

-- John Lind

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

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