For those, like me, who nearly never -- probably less than twice a year -- use
an OM without a motor drive or winder, it's just nit-picking. :-)
Consider:
OM-4Ti/MD2/NiCd pack = 140mm x 130mm x 75mm 1228g
(I just measured and weighed one quickly, but I don't think I'm off by much.)
This is probably why some of us couldn't care less about them little, tiny 40mm
lenses.
Just checked the UPS web site. The E-1 will be here in just about 48 hours.
I'll make a side-by-side comparison about noon Thursday and get back to y'all
on it.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Mark Dapoz <md@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Timpe, Jim wrote:
> >
> > Mark said:
> >
> > The E-1 isn't that big:
> >
> > E-1: 141mm x 104mm x 81mm 660g
> > OM-1: 136mm x 83mm x 50mm 510g
> > E-300: 146.5mm x 85mm x 64mm 580g
> >
> > Sure the E-300 is closer to an OM-1, but the E-1 isn't that much heavier
> > than an OM-1.
> > -mark
> >
> > 30% is significant to me. I only handled an E-1 briefly for an afternoon,
> > and have only had the E-300 for about a week now, but it does feel closer to
> > OM-ness. How's that for scientific, y'all?
>
> Nah, a 1Ds MKII at 1565g is significant :-)
> -mark
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|