Subject: | Re: [OM] Dings, Doinks and Dents |
---|---|
From: | Motor Sport Visions Photography <msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:43:51 -0700 |
In a message dated 6/14/2000 "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: << Heck, even Olympus's failed AF system included lenses that were built like they were intended to stop bullets. I've been tempted to try an OM-77 or - -88 just on the basis of the lenses alone. >> I don't recall the Olympus AF lenses being all that robust either... I do recall that the bodies (OM-77) were plastic and perhaps not even as robust as the IS series. (I recall the battery case being a particular weak point and all my ex-wife used her Olympus AF system for was as a family P&S.) If you desire AF and want to stick with Olympus, try an IS-3... I currently have an IS-2 and love it. From all I have heard that has been improved in the IS-3 would suggest that it is a _very_ nice camera. If only Olympus made a "t" version. I'm not too worried though, used prices of the IS-2 being such as they are, they are about as "disposable" as an OM-2000. Mike Veglia Motor Sport Visions Photography http://www.motorsportvisions.com < 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 > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Lightining, Barry B. Bean |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Snappy Lens Definition Please, Lex Jenkins |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Dings, Doinks and Dents, Lex Jenkins |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Dings, Doinks and Dents, Per Nordenberg |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |