The IS mechanism and the dust shaker account for some of it. But, given
that the IS mechanism isn't in the lenses ala C & N the lenses should be
lighter yet.
Chuck Norcutt
Garth Wood wrote:
> John Hudson wrote:
>> My 1972 Nikkormat FTn body weighs 800gr without the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 lens up
>> front.
>>
>> Like the M3 body, the FTn body was built to outlive me. Both are metal
>> bodies without much plastic framework in evidence.
>>
>> If the E3 weights in at 810gr is this to suggest that it is as robustly
>> built as the M3 or FTn? Somehow I doubt it. So what accounts for the weight?
>
> Well, there is that big beautiful pentaprism in the E-3; I'm willing to
> bet that a solid chunk of glass like that would add 100-150g (4 to 6
> oz.) to the weight all by itself...
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|