There are many more differences between a nice rangefinder and an OM body.
Yes, size is close, but they are still two different animals and not
interchangable.
If you want to start with a RF, consider a nice Bessa R2a or R3a. This
gives you modern construction at a reasonable price. The new AE R3a
especially has a great 1:1 finder that is every bit as good as a Leica.
The R2a has a .7x finder. The bodies aren't constructed to the same
standards as a Leica, so they don't feel as solid, but they're darned close
for 1/5 the price. The CV lenses are superb.
Skip
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Rick Beckrich rick_beckrich@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: OM size vs small RFs, was Relative costs ...
Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....I got to thinking: with a 35 or 50 attached, the OM bodes
are as small as the rangefinders. I write this because I keep lusting
after a 35mm rangefinder....
Actually, I started with OMs because they felt so much like the L**** IIIf
I had been using for years. Recently I've backslid into the RF trap again.
First with old Russian stuff, than added two CV Bessa (L & R). Rick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|