Subject: | Re: [OM] Why an OM-3? |
---|---|
From: | Henrik Dahl <hdahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:29:53 +0200 |
I stand, sit, and bow down humbly corrected. Could have sworn it was plastic. Looks like plastic. Feels warm and operates entirely differently from my OM2n, and my late drowned OM1 (R.I.P.), which to my clumsy fingers, have real silver, large, smooth sliding, cool METAL shutter-speed rings. Well regardless of my metal detecting disability, IMHO the OM3/OM3Ti SHOULD have a ring like the OM1, OM2. THEN I would buy it! - Parzival. One ring to rule them all... Henrik Dahl < 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] Why an OM-3?, Terry and Tracey |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] 85/2 from the Cretaceous period. An impulse buy?, DBellamy2k |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, Parzival Herzog |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Why an OM-3?, andrew fildes |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |