Well, I reread your question and I guess I'm confusing 'backpacking' with a
previous discussion of 'rock climbing', which is why I was talking about its
toughness and being careful not to drop it. The OM-G would be fine for
backpacking, but still with the previous warning against rough use. It
definitely feels more 'plasticky', When I mentioned the OM-1 it was because
(to me) it feels like it was sculpted from a single piece of metal, it gives
you great confidence in its durability, and it has no electronics to get out
of whack if it is banged around a bit. The 'electronic' OMs understandably
seem to be more sensitive to abuse. The weight of all OMs are more or less in
the same ballpark; IMO, any weight difference wouldn't matter all that much
to a backpacker. Lenses, OTOH, vary greatly in size and weight and should be
more of a consideration.
Best,
George S.
> Thanks George. Is the OM1 tougher than the OM2n? I believe the 1 is ten
> grams lighter than the OM2n. Not much, but something. John.
>
>
|