on 10/13/02 9:17 AM, Walt Wayman at hiwayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> It's been too quiet around here lately, so consider this, all you OM-2
> lovers:
snippo
> Every time I think about having one of each of the single-digit OM bodies
> and getting a 2, I decide against it, because it seems to be neither fish
> nor fowl. To me, it's either an OM-1 with stuff you don't need or an OM-4
> without all the stuff you want. I think of the OM-2 as being the camera
> equivalent of the four-seat Thunderbird that Ford made between the original
> two-seater and the Cobra.
>
> Where have I gone wrong? Of course, if someone wants to donate one so that
> I may be otherwise persuaded....
>
> Walt
I won't count my bodies... but IMO the OM-2n was about the pinnacle of
classic OM design. Its smaller than the more recent 2s, 3, and 4 due to the
detachable hotshoe. The viewfinder needle mechanism, showing a simple clean
+ and - or with a quick-reading easily seen needle pointing to the shutter
speed, is a marvel of intuitive design. The handling is as slick and tactile
as the OM-1 was originally, without any buttons to press for Hilite, Shadow,
Spot, and other intrusive functions. The wind mechanism feels smoother. The
sound is satisfying, and the long exposures are loooonnnnnnnggggg. I think
my OM-2n's would be the last to go. It looks elegant in chrome, and stealthy
and professional in black.
Anybody with any spare OM-2n's can send them my way...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|