There really isn't any doubt regarding the origins of the 2000.
John
lion1 wrote:
> After following this thread on the 35 - 105, I have come to a personal
> conclusion.
> If it looks like it, feels like it and works like it, then it is an OLY.
>
> I would think that most modern day corporations job out a certain amount of
> work.
>
> I don't think it would make this lens any less a Zuiko if they had it made
> in another plant as long as it meets the requirements of Olympus.
>
> Look at the OM 2000. Is it or isn't it an Olympus. And that lens that
> comes with it, who makes it? And all those other Olympus products. I'm
> sure I don't know.
>
> Charlie Loeven
> Largo Florida
>
> < 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 >
|