Hi Ingemar,
I've only handled an OM-10 once. The OM2000 is lighter, but it's not
because it's made of titanium.<G> My impression is that it is made of a
lot more plastic than an OM-10, but the plastic is probably better quality
and cheaper than was available when OM-10s were being manufactured. One of
Olympus' points of advertisement about the OM2000 is the amount of aluminum
in its construction (frame? plus top and bottom?). Ten years from now ...
your guess is as good as mine.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, IA USA
At 06:53 PM 11/17/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
>> I can use it alongside my OM-2S and OM-4T with
>> complete confidence that the results will be indistinguishable.
>>
>> I realize that you did not specifically indict the OM2000 as a "crappy"
>> camera. But the informal logic of "I had a bad Cosina experience, therefore
>> the OM2000 is a bad camera" would be an easy but incorrect inference. So
>> far as I can tell at least.
>
>Joel,
>as you own and use an OM2000, what is your impression about its quality
>compared to an OM-10? What I am thinking of is the build quality - if
there are
>any plastic things inside like the OM-10?
>Will the OM2000 suffer from *some kind of* "sticky magnet problem" in the
>future? After all, the camera is quite new on market. What will it perform in
>lets say 10 years from now?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>--
>Regards/
> Ingemar Uvhagen
> Gislaved, Sweden
< 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 >
|