On 25 Oct 98, at 21:26, R. Lee Hawkins wrote:
> In your message dated: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:10:52 EST you write:
> >Hi Denton:
> >
> >> You're saying the the 3TI has a better surface
> >> treatment than the 4TI?
> >
> >That has been mentioned in some of the published camera reviews, as well as
> >one place on the WWW which reported on torture testing of various pro level
> >camera bodies. Note that the OM-4 has the traditional black paint on
> >aluminum
> >alloy which wears better, although nowhere as well as good old "chrome."
> >Finally, there was the original "champagne" OM-4T without paint. I'm rather
> >attracted to that one, myself.
>
> Humm... I was under the impression that the "champagne" version did have
> some kind of paint or surface coating (that is, it isn't bare Ti). I've
> seen quite a few examples that at least look like they have a coating
> that has worn off around the strap mount points. Or is that just a
> clear varnish over the Ti?
>
Nope, my champagne 4T definitely has paint, or what's left of it that is. I
wish
they had used a clear coat of some sort - the bare titanium looks much
better than the paint used.
Shawn & Janis Wright
swright@xxxxxxxxx
http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
(Olympus List Archives)
< 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 >
|