Stuart;
Thanks for the first hand experience testemonial. Nothing like it. Yes, I
think it probably is a good value for the money. I still may get
one, I dunno. The shop owner was wrong about one thing: I wouldn't be better
off with an OM-1, as I've already got 4 of 'em. I want the
multi-exposure. I'll let my other bodies handle the motor drive.
george
Stuart Goggin wrote:
> Hello George,
>
> I have had an Om 2000 for about three months now, and have put about 30
> rolls through it so far.... Seem to be holding together very well. I
> agree it is not quite as "tight" as the other OM's but I think after
> handling some of the other plastic wonders on the market these days, it is
> very well made. Inside, it's got a Copal metal blade shutter, which in the
> medium and large format world is supposed to signify quality. Inside it
> seems as well built as my older all metal OM's. In fact it has as much
> plastic as my OM 10's and 20's. And these have stood up very well.
>
> I think for its price, it is a VERY good deal. And I really like the spot
> metering.....
>
> It would have been nice if it was Motor Drive capable, but since I cannot
> afford a MD, this point is a bit mute for me ;-)
>
> Stuart
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [OM] OM-2000
> Date: 04 May 98 02:26:05
> From: gma <gma@xxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: OO2UNIX.AU.ORACLE.COM:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Organization: Anderson Photography
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> References: <E18BD9A560E6D011B16100A0247C9DDE1069E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <353FE518.7CB2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <l03102803b171dd96b157@[207.105.46.27]>
>
> Yesterday I decided that I'd like to have an OM-2000 for two reasons: I'd
> like
> a brand new O-body and I'd like real multi-exposure capability. Of course,
> impulsively, I wanted it NOW. So I picked up the yellow pages and called two
> local photo shops which had the word OLYMPUS in their ads. (I recently moved
> so
> I am unfamiliar with the photo stores in this area).
>
> The salesman at the first place said he thought he had a used one (already?)
> and checked and then said it'd been sold. That the previous owner had
> wanted a
> fully manual camera and they'd moved him up to an SLR. HUH? I had to inform
> him
> of what the OM-2000 was. He said he'd check the catalog! One good thing: he
> says he's got a good supply of used Oly gear. I'll check it out ASAP.
>
> Second place was different. He knew right away what the 2000 was. He said
> that he was resisting carrying it because: "cameras from that manufacturer
> have
> been very unreliable". "You mean Cosina?"
> "Right. Cosina. We've carried the Ricoh KR-5 which is essentially the same as
> the OM-2000 and the return rate with camera failure has been greater than
> 20%.
> I think you'd be better off with a used OM-1."
>
> So now I'm wondering if the 2000 is the way to go. I'll probably wait now to
> see what happens at Photokina. Really hoping for a good OM-5Ti to make it's
> appearance.
>
> george
>
> < 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 >
|