I agree with you, Joseph.
But I managed to find an easy solution here.
I quote from a thread of a few months back (with a nice discussion on
left/right eye dominance):
: Hello all, in particular John H. and Tomoko Y.
:
: I made the modification needed to have the shutter being no longer
: blocked by the winder switch in rest position.
: I have never made any modification this easy, and what is more
: important (warranty!) it is completely reversible.
:
: You only need to deassemble the winder switch (by unscrewing the tiny
: Phillips screw on the downside of the handle) and taking temporarily
: away the next three parts lying around its axis.
: Then the blocking ring is lying on top and the only thing I did was
: turn it upside down, making sure that the little protuberance in the
: ring which would normally shift under the shutter points to the back
: rather than to the front (maybe I should say to eight o'clock instead
: of ten o'clock)
: After that you can reassemble the winder switch exactly as it was
: before. The little protuberance now lies almost exactly under the
: winder handle.
: All it took was exactly three minutes... and now the OM2000 is free of
: the annoying Nikon inherited eye-threatener. And it still has twelve
: months of warranty - I didn't even have to open the camera body.
:
: Frank van Lindert
: Utrecht NL.
I was warned by John H. that this tampering might void the warranty
yet. But later I thought of the fact the lat thing Olympus would want
is being sued for possible eye damage resulting from use of the
OM2000.... so my mind and my (elastic) conscience were set at rest by
the idea that I helped them with my modification too ;-)
I haven't checked if my recipe for eye damage prevention has found its
way to one of the FAQ's. Maybe the English used could do with some
improvement..
Frank van Lindert.
=========================================================================
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 05:39:03 -0600 (MDT), Joseph Albert
<jalbert@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>I had a chance to handle an OM-2000 for a while and, while there are
>some impressive things about it (very lightweight, all-metal frame and
>lens mount, OM mount body with 125 X sync, spotmeter, mechanical shutter),
>I don't think it is a camera I could be happy with.
>
>the main problem is that I look through a viewfinder with my left eye.
>when the film wind lever is flush with the body, the shutter release
>is locked. when the wind lever is not flush with the body, one can
>take a picture and when I did that, I foudn the wind level poking at
>the ridge of my nose and/or right eye in a very annoying manner.
>
>That this camera was first manufactured (albeit without spotmeter)
>as an FM-10 is probably telling, as Nikon seems to have the attitude
>that left-eye dominant folks should have to pay close to $1000 for a usable
>camera. In fact, this is no small reason why I choose to use Olympus
>35mm SLR gear instead of Nikon. I would be quite happy with a pair of
>Nikon FG's and a suitable collection of lenses and accessories, but
>the FG suffers from the same limitation.
>
>In any case, I found the OM-2000 to be a big disappointment. but if you
>are among the roughly 750f the population who prefer to look through
>a viewfinder with your right eye, then the OM-2000 is probably a very
>usable, straightforward camera.
>
>j. albert
>
>< 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 >
|