> Hi Folks,
>
> I've seen on Gary's lens-test site where he has used the OM2000 quite a
bit.
>
> Yet in the last digest somebody noted that it is a despised camera. Is
this
> because it is a C*s*n* product, or are there deeper reasons?.
>
> This curious person wants to know. Brian
I don't despise mine. And if I could afford its cousin, a Voightlander R2,
I'd have one of those too. I use an OM2s and OM1n most of the time now, so,
no, its not my primary camera or anything like that.
What I don't like about the OM2000:
1. Plastic back. But really, who ever has had trouble with that?
2. Loud shutter sound. But offset by knowing the fact that it doesn't affect
image quality.
What I do like about the OM2000:
1. Multiple exposure. IMO, you either get the OM2000, or a N*k*n, etc, if
you want to do multiple exposuses.
2. Price. I got mine from Tom for about the price of an OM10. You get
1/2000, all mechanical, same basic color, as the OM3ti, but at a slight
saving :-) And based on Gary Reese's test, I doubt I'd notice the difference
in image quality if I use a tripod. Besides, how do you define image quality
in multiple exposures? If you're worried about it wearing out, buy five
OM2000's, three OM1n's, and an OM4ti. They'll do everything an Om3ti will
do, and together they'll last as long as the same priced OM3ti :-) No, the
OM2000 is not for profesionals. But one thing I've learned from reading this
list for well over a year now, every OM camera model breaks, wears out,
short circuits, or needs repair from time to time. Well, maybe not the
OM3ti. But it doesn't do multiple exposures either! (yes, I know about the
three-handed, rewind - hold the handle and rewind button while advancing -
skip the next frame, foolishness)
Wayne
< 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 >
|