I had either an H1 or an H2 (can't remember which), and it did not have auto
mirror return. Nice little camera. Limited capabilities, but a capable piece
of equipment. Mine had waist-level finder, as I recall, which is why I bought
it.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 9/19/2003 at 12:04 PM Moose wrote:
>That's about 15 years befor the OM-1 and, other than being an SLR, a
>different category of camera. In the meantime, the simple elegance of
>the H1, with no meter and preset lenses (does it have auto mirror
>return?) had been replaced with large, heavy cameras with all the
>mechanical and electronic mechanisms for TTL metering at full aperture,
>auto diaphram and mirror action and return. The OM-1 was a real
>revelation when it came out after the Topcon Super-D and then Nik*n Ftn
>I had been using. I bought the OM-1, got rid of the Nik*n and it was a
>great move.
>
>Walt Wayman wrote:
>
>>If this is so, then explain, please, why my old Heiland Pentax H1,
>>which I have had since 1960, more than a decade before the first
>>OM appeared, is just barely -- and I do mean barely -- bigger than
>>an OM. Do I have a rare prototype built at the secret Nevada
>>Pentax plant? Wonder what it might fetch on *bay.
>>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|