Unbelievable! Gary, you've made my evening! You certainly have a gift for
the vernacular as well as the acumen for the material! I anxiously await
your next offering! :-)
BTW: Am I that gullible or did they really make the OM-1 in green leather?
RonS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary Schloss
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 2:34 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] OM Leather Fetish, and other Oddities
>
>
> Dear Zuiks/Zuikettes:
>
> In the last few weeks, there was a lively discussion of all things OM
> that are weird and/or wonderful, including the ultimately unsuccessful
> auction for the OM-1 "Gold" on eB*y, a variety of color leather clad OM
> bodies (were they sold with matching boots and whips? :-)), as well as
> some M-1 gear and accessories.
>
> To comply with my promise to contribute some bona fide OM content, let
> me invite you to take a look at a couple of those leather perversions,
> ... uhm, I meant: creations! :-) (All picts average 50-80 KB).
>
> The first one is a hot looking late production OM-1N number in a rich,
> luxurious burgundy red. IMHO, this treatment is not too bad, and it
> compliments the camera rather nicely. This sample is still in my
> collection, i.e. for now it is not for sale.
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_lfrt.jpg
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_rfrt.jpg
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_bk.jpg
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om1nburg_btm.jpg
>
>
> The second sample, IMHO, is not as attractive. It's an OM-2N number
> clad in alligator patterned leather, in a greenish hue which I refer
> to as "toxic green" or "swamp green". This camera is no longer in my
> possesion, and I apologize for the poor quality of the picts which were
> taken rather hastily, before the camera shipped out.
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om2ngreen_frt.jpg
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/om2ngreen_bk.jpg
>
>
> I solicit your input on what could be done with the Zuikos to make them
> look more compatible with the color leather treated chrome OM bodies
> (clearly, the mostly black Zuikos don't clash with color leather clad
> black bodies, but IMHO they're not a good match for the chrome OM's).
>
>
> There was also some banter with regard to a recent OM-1 auction on eB*y,
> supposedly misrepresented as an M-1. Even though numerous picts clearly
> identifying the body as an OM-1 were included in that auction, it seems
> that quite a few Zuiks were confused. This led me to believe that some
> of the list members may have never seen an M-1. For those of you who
> must fill this gap in their Olympus 101 coursework -- pls take a peek
> at the following:
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/m1_frt2.jpg
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/m1_bk2.jpg
>
>
> Finally, a couple of odds and ends. First, another wrinkle in the great
> SC vs MC divide. Now, we all remember the rules: (1) if a prime lens
> engraving has a capital letter in front of the "Zuiko", as in E.Zuiko,
> G.Zuiko, etc., then the lens is SC. (2) if OTOH a prime lens has an
> "MC" marking, or no "MC" markings but also no letters in front of
> "Zuiko", then the lens is MC.
>
> Well, guess what? I have proof that some SC lenses exist which violate
> rule (2). Indeed, pls take a look at the following:
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/schloss/misc/z13535_nof.jpg
>
> This is a late production Zuiko 135mm F3.5. In the past, I was certain
> that all 135/3.5 lenses were SC. So, when I first saw the above sample,
> I was thrilled. Here was my chance to own the rare, and hence highly
> collectible 135/3.5 MC. Heck, it even had some green reflections!
>
> Wrong !!! Sadly, the lens turned out to be SC, and the green reflections
> came from an MC filter. Bummer! Anyways, I have since encountered at
> least one more 135/3.5 with the same contradictory markings, which means
> that we must amend rule (2). Meanwhile, my tireless research continues...
>
> The second oddity some of you may find soooo boring, that even an endless
> discussion of 50/1.8 lens variations may excite in comparison. My humble
> apologies -- you may want to abort now, or proceed at your own risk. :-)
>
> This topic has to do with the early "silver mose" Zuikos. Take a
> look at the lens flange of any of your Zuikos. It is attached to the
> lens by means of three Philips screws, right? Well, recently I picked
> up an early silver nose Zuiko 100/2.8, serial no. 1040xx. Surprise,
> surprise: it has _slotted_ screws. (Exciting, huh? I told you so.)
>
> Now, many manufacturers used slotted screws in their early (and I mean:
> EARLY!) lenses, e.g. Nikon, Konica, etc. But OM Zuikos? Nah, they are
> too modern, right? Well, clearly I thought so, but apparently I was
> wrong: some early OM lens batches were either made for Olympus by someone
> else, or were manufactured way, way before the OM bodies were ready.
> So, does anyone else have early OM Zuikos with slottes screws? Pls
> report. (Yes, I know that all the Pen F/FT Zuikos have slotted screws,
> but those are much smaller.)
>
> My final point of reference was my earliest Zuiko, a maaahvelous 85/f2
> with a serial no. 100449 -- my only lens from a first production batch
> (under 500!!). Well, guess what -- it has Phillips screws! Ahem, this
> is a mystery worthy of yours truly, Gary "The OM Sleuth" Schloss.
>
> Hey, hey! Who said: "The OM Slut"?! Wait, m*th*r&%#$%&, I'll get ya!!
> :-) :-) <big grin>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> /Gary Schloss.
> schloss@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|
