Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] New book barely mentions OM

Subject: RE: [OM] New book barely mentions OM
From: Suchismit.Chakravorty@xxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:41:55 -0500
In my previous message, I mixed up references to books  by Michael Levy
and Ivor Matanle.
While Levy does display ignorance (Olympus 105 ! ), Matanle in his
'Collecting and Using
Classic SLRs' says the following about Olympus

* Olympus lenses tend to have high contrast, which masks any lack of
resolution (??)
* Their lenses on the longer side are not as good as the Canons and
Nikons ( Exactly which of
            Olympus's longer lenses are not as good as which of C's and
N's . ? )
* The OM bodies (at least the OM 1) tend to be brittle. He even says
that while Ns and Cs might
  survive a fall, the OM1 probably wouldn't. (Can someone confirm that
?)

*Something about the tripod sockets not being strong enough.
*The OM cameras are too small(for him at least) ,hinting that was a
reason Olympus didn't become
 popular  with pro photographers. (How many pro photographers regularly
take hand held pictures ? And how
  many wouldn't prefer to carry a smaller/lighter body than a giant
plastic brick ?)





.

   
   
   
   
   ----------
   From:       Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Sent:       Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:10 AM
   To:         olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Cc:         Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Subject:    [OM] New book barely mentions OM
   
   Amherst Media has a new book out titled something like "How to Select
   and Use Classic Cameras" by Michael Levy.  In his 35mm SLR section he
   says only Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus SLR's should be
   considered worth collecting and using.  But he contradicts himself
   later
   on with Alpa and Leicaflex lust.  He devotes lots of text to the
   Nikon
   F, but short changes everything else, including Olympus. To the
   Olympus
   OM, he devotes one paragraph, in which he says he had a (presumably
   used) OM-1, but it "died" after 2 years.  (Why didn't you fix it,
   Michael?).  But he really liked the "105mm" Olympus lens. Huh?  A
   105mm
   Olympus lens?
   
   Golly gee, another poorly edited book (there are lots of other
   problems).  I think it even had a copyright date of 2002.  It's at
   Border's.
   
   BTW, I'd consider a Konica over a Minolta SLR any day of the week!
   
   Gary Reese
   Las Vegas, NV


   ----------
   From:       "Skip Williams" <skipwilliamsom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
   Sent:       Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:17 PM
   To:         olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Cc:         "Skip Williams" <skipwilliamsom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
   Subject:    Re: [OM] New book barely mentions OM
   
   There are many other brands to consider when collecting other than
   the 
   Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Alpa and Leicaflex mentioned.
   
   Obviously this guy was not very objective, the book poorly edited and
   
   vetted, and research or caveats not given as to the author's
   preferences and 
   experience.
   
   I can think of many other SLR's that merit consideration for
   collecting: 
   Contax, Miranda, Konica, Zeiss/Icon, Practica, Topcon, Zenit, Exakta,
   Kiev 
   to name a few.
   
   Geez...it's surprising to see such poorly produced books as this
   today.  
   Michael should get a copy of Ivor Matanle's two books or his series
   of 
   articles in Amatuer Photographer, which I really enjoy. They talk
   much more 
   about selecting and using cameras, and they cover a wide range of
   modern 
   classics.
   
   Skip
   
   
   ****** I M P O R T A N T   R E P L Y   I N F O ************
   Please adddress ALL offlist messages to skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
   This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list 
   subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages
   addressed 
   here.
   ***********************************************************
   
   
   
   >From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   >Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   >To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   >Subject: [OM] New book barely mentions OM
   >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:10:42 -0700
   >
   >Amherst Media has a new book out titled something like "How to
   Select
   >and Use Classic Cameras" by Michael Levy.  In his 35mm SLR section
   he
   >says only Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus SLR's should be
   >considered worth collecting and using.  But he contradicts himself
   later
   >on with Alpa and Leicaflex lust.  He devotes lots of text to the
   Nikon
   >F, but short changes everything else, including Olympus. To the
   Olympus
   >OM, he devotes one paragraph, in which he says he had a (presumably
   >used) OM-1, but it "died" after 2 years.  (Why didn't you fix it,
   >Michael?).  But he really liked the "105mm" Olympus lens. Huh?  A
   105mm
   >Olympus lens?
   >
   >Golly gee, another poorly edited book (there are lots of other
   >problems).  I think it even had a copyright date of 2002.  It's at
   >Border's.
   >
   >BTW, I'd consider a Konica over a Minolta SLR any day of the week!
   >
   >Gary Reese
   >Las Vegas, NV
   >
   >
   >< 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 >
   >
   
   
   _________________________________________________________________
   Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
   http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
   
   
   < 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz