You mean it's not? I don't actually know, as I haven't been allowed to play in
this sandbox myself. I just assumed (yeah, I know, that makes an ass out of u
and me) that since the original post, by I still don't remember who, but
someone I think I considered knowledgeable, referred to a "smaller mount" on
the E-300, that the E-1 had to have the same "smaller mount," since the lenses
that fit the former also fit the latter. Having never seen an E-1 in person
(or should I say "in camera," except that means, in legal parlance, something
entirely different), I have no idea about the comparative size of it's hole and
the one in an OM. Therefore, realizing I don't know much about it at all, I'm
going to keep my hole shut.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from Winsor Crosby : --------------
>
> You think the 4/3 mount is smaller than the OM mount?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|