> >......If a fellow has an OM-1n, an OM-3, an
> > OM-4 (or three), and an OM-4Ti, is there any conceivable reason
> > (except for the tragic compulsion of Zuikoholism that requires the
> > acquisition of at least one of everything) to own an OM-2? What
> > possibly could an OM-2 do that can't be done, and then some, with
> > the 1, 3, 4 or 4Ti? Anyone? Anyone?
>From another perspective, like mine, one, or maybe two, OM-2n models is all
the SLR power anyone should need. I also have an OM-1n (just because I
thought I ought to) and an OM40 (because it feels extra nice), but they
aren't essential. If I didn't think the OM-4 range was much more than
electronic gimmickry gone mad, I'd probably have bought one by now, and I
couldn't justify the price of an OM-3, even to myself.
Regards,
Keith Berry
< 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 >
|