OK, I'll bite!
Compared to the OM-4t
1. I DONT like the constant spot in manual. I prefer the spot
metering setup in the OM-4 or OM-3.
2. I like the option of an averaging meter in manual - something you
loose with the OM-2s
3. No spot meter in auto.
4. Program mode - I never found a use for it, and don't fine the
program setup to be very good.
5. Rapid battery drain, and NO WARNING when the batteries are going to
die, at least on the two samples I owned.
6. More solid feel to the OM-4t
Compared to the OM-2
1. See 5 above.
2. Noisier than the 2 or 2n - at least to my ears
3. The handling of the OM-2 is susprior, particularily the winding is
smoother and the shutter speed ring has a more solid feel.
4. A REAL on/off switch.
This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the 2s, I just
prefer the orginal 2/2n and the OM-4 or Om-3
Parzival Herzog wrote:
>On February 27, 2004 23:38, AG Schnozz wrote:
>
>
>Well stated! Certainly not just sentiment. So now I wonder, why so many others
>seem NOT to like the OM2s, compared to OM2/OM4. Does anyone with experience
>care to volunteer a justification for the OM2s "nay"? Is it reliability or
>serviceability?
>
>I have a question w.r.t. reason (2). If the 2s mirror is half-silvered, does
>it not reduce the V.F. brightness by 1 stop, which would then be compensated
>for by the 2/3 stop brighter screen, leading to a net "no difference" in
>viewfinder brightness from the OM1/2?
>
>
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|