Oh come on now! They redesigned it, rebuilt it and stuck a red spot
on it! That's worth lots. They even fitted a neat rounded top plate
on it which develops a very cute type of pitting erosion under the
finish - you don't get that for free! And the leatherette doesn't
shrink like every Minnie manual ever made I suspect. And don't forget
the CL - that was special.
I've owned both and they are fairly different in some respects - one
has a red spot on it dammit and it is so much prettier. A friend was
selling recently both the Leica Digilux 2 and the Panasonic
equivalent. Couldn't shift the one Leica but sold a poultice of
Panasonics, all he could get. What is the world coming to when people
won't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a red spot?
Interestingly, Wetzlar chose the Minolta (which one was it now?)
because it had the then unique ability to do aperture priority OR
shutter priority as well as manual and program operation.
Unfortunately that was also its weak spot and many R4's like their
Minnie cousins saw the shutter priority and program functions fail.
They also rebadged a number of Minnie lenses but the LUG nuts claim
that they were extensively rebuilt on arrival in Germany and up to
75% were rejected and returned.
I have a couple of R4s' which are much more reliable and although the
poor version, are now usually worth more than an R4. I did an
interesting comparison the other day - I weighed the R4s and OM 1
bodies. The OM looks smaller but really isn't by much and only weighs
a little less - about 500g to 550g. Hardly noticeable. But adding the
type 2 35/2 Summicron almost doubled the weight - the thing has the
same specific gravity as a lump of granite. It appears to be machined
out of solid brass - but oh what a sweet thing it is. I didn't have a
Zuiko 35/2 for comparison but a 50/1.4 only added a couple of hundred
grams to the OM1 - there was now a significant difference. I suspect
that a lot of the OM reputation for compactness is due to the very
small lenses - a lot of manufacturers made compact bodies but did not
produce a new line of compact lenses to match.
AndrewF
On 10/08/2005, at 1:14 AM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I think Oly could have done it cheaper. Remember, Leica rebadged a
> $250 Minolta, and marked it up a thousand dollars with a straight
> face. And anyone who was happy to plunk down a near Leica price for
> an OM3T would have been delirious to get one.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|