>schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
><< Well, sorry for taking so long to get my 2 mounts tested. I did it
> today with my OM-4, and, I'm sorry to say, my results are the opposite
> of the above, i.e. the mount labelled "OL Japan" is the bad one, whereas
> the "ADAPTALL 2 for OLYMPUS OM JAPAN" works fine.
>
> I don't have a logical explanation why my results are different from
> other Zuiks who tried this. Hmm, a Tamron mystery ... >>
Greg McGrath wrote:
>How about this for a theory: maybe Tamron assembled Olympus adapters from a
>"mixed bag" of parts, or did a gradual transition using up some parts before
>others, so that the labeling on the mount might not be a 100% accurate guide
>to "safety." I'm sure that the two "Japan OL" mounts I have are safe, and
>also sure that the "Adaptall 2" inscribed mount was not safe.
This is certainly a possibility. The 2 mounts I have certainly differ in
their screw positioning.
>I guess for the time being we'll just have to scrutinize each mount carefully
>for screw placement.
Someone (I believe it was Sal Piro?) posted a couple of Adaptall ring
picts on the Web. Regrettably, I did not bookmark it. Can someone pls
post the URL again? TIA.
Craig Henrikson wrote:
>Gary, Gary, Gary -- IMHO you have it backwards :-). My "Adaptall 2 for
>Olympus OM Japan" is one of the bad ones. I suggest you check again.
I did check again, and I stand by my original post. Sorry to disrupt
what looked like a neat theory for good/bad mount ID. This may not be
as simple as checking the inscription. Greg's above assumption may
actually be on the money. Tomorrow, I'll call Tamron USA.
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|