The original cost of the OM-3/T refelects the fact that it is more
expensive and labor intensive to build a camera with a mechnical shutter
than an electronic shutter and interface that with the advanced
electronics of the flash and metering systems, not neccesarily it's
utility. Now the rareity of a very small production run keeps the prices
elevated.
As for advantages, not being dependent on batteries can be a real
benefit. I still recall being on Mt Rainier, trying to shoot at 1/60
because not only did the orginal batteries in my OM-2s die, but the
backup set was dead as well! If you do a lot of fill flash the OM-3/T is
the best OM for the job.
For some people the OM-3/T is just the best tool for what they want to
do. It may not be worth the extra cost to you ro me, but it is to other
folks. (For me my ugly old OM-3 and my OM-4/T gives me the features I
would want out of the OM-3/T.)
Jim Couch
Richard F. Man wrote:
As far as I know, these are advantages that an OM-3/T has over OM-4/T:
- all mechanical shutter. No battery, no problem. Then again, a spare
pair of battery takes up zero space...
- 3T can have the shutter in any speed under 1/60 under auto mode.
Thus allowing fill flash control. Then again, a modern Metz flash does
some of that too.
- No need for that spot memory button :-)
- Collector's Value
The CONS are
- no auto-exposure
- no self-timer
AFAIK, the shutter loudness and the mirror vibration issue, is exactly
the same as the 4/T.
Did I forget anything? If so, then really, it's that Collectors' Value
thing that makes a used 3 sells for about $600-$1000 whereas a used 4
sells for about $250-$500, and a used 3T for $900-$1600 and a used 4T
for $400-$650.
< 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 >
|