Lee, you may want to read the Popular Photography review in last month's
issue. I think it gave the 2000 a good review. It is not "flimsy" as you
said. Rather the tri-metal body is light and seems quite sturdy. An OM-1 it
is not.
I guess you need to try one as I did when they came out. You might have a
different opinion if you actually used one. I have sold a number of them and
have not had ANY problems with them, so far. Paul.
R. Lee Hawkins wrote:
> In your message dated: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:41:10 EST you write:
> >
> >hi,
> >
> >i just joined this list.
> >
> >i think i want an om2000.
>
> Hi all:
> I finally got around to getting my hands on an OM2000 in a local camera
> shop this weekend, while looking for used Oly stuff. I know some of you
> on the list like this camera, but to me, it is unforgivably flimsy. I
> can't imagine one of these cameras lasting for more than a few years,
> even with light use. The Cosina zooms are likewise very lightweight.
> This, and the fact that the controls are in a different location than
> all other Oly cameras means that I hesitate to recommend them to anyone.
> I think anyone getting into Olympus would be much better served by an
> OM-G or OM-2N. I'm certain a used OM-G will last much longer than a
> used OM2000, and they are more fully compatible with all the Oly
> accessories.
>
> Now, admittedly, I've never *used* an OM2000, just played with one in
> the store. Do others who have experience with it have different
> opinions?
>
> Cheers,
> --Lee
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|