On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:46:34 +1100
Marc Lawrence <mlawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<SNIP>
> OM Content? Well, when my Dad visited my sister when she
> was over there, he took his newly bought Pentax MZ5n. The
> moment he turned it on after getting off the plane, it
> wouldn't work, and didn't work for the 6 weeks he was
> there. He got off the place in Sydney and it worked fine.
> I spoke to him while he was over there and said "Buy an
> old manual Pentax with a 50/1.8. It'll be cheap as chips.
> Failing that, buy an old Olympus OM with a 35-70/80/105/
> whatever, and I'll pay you what you paid for it when you
> get back". He didn't, and he's hardly used the Pentax
> since (nice camera - tiny in a good way). [SIGH] It was
That's odd. We have Pentax as the "other system" here in the
household for when AF is needed, and one of our bodies is a MZ5n. It
feels a little plasticy, to be sure, but is sturdy enough and has
been around the world with us a few times without any signs of
malfunction.
Actually, I was/am very surprised by the sturdyness of this lil' body
- it is almost as small as an OM. Case in point: to feel that I could
get my (normal-to-big) hands wrapped around the MZ-S, I felt the need
to invest in a battery grip. Otherwise it was simply too small.
I almost have the same thing with OM's, where I much prefer to have a
winder or an MD mounted to feel that I have a good grip on the
camera.
Of course, building bodies small and compact with the option of
enlarging them when needed is the nicer approach than is building a
heavy-weight tank and then not being able to strip it down to
something that fits in a pocket (yes, I am thinking F5 here...)
--thomas
< 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 >
|