| Subject: | Re: [OM] Why OM3/T? |
|---|---|
| From: | Magdalena Cano Plewinska <MPlewinska@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:43:13 -0500 |
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:54:08 -0500, "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >There is only a 3Ti. I do not believe there was ever a 3T. >[...] >So, 4T = 4Ti. Thanks, Tom. That clears up the confusion. -- Magda Plewinska Miami, Florida, USA email to MPlewinska at mindspring dot com (case sensitive) < 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] - Another lens that never made it (and this time itwasa*REAL* pity!), Robert T McFetridge |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Fishy digital Theory?, Winsor Crosby |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Why OM3/T?, Moose |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Why OM3/T?, Walt Wayman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |