Quoting Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Yup. Of course the photographer didn't have any part in
> it, eh?
Thanks, Chuck, for the implied compliment, though it's a bit
like stealing candy from a baby with my lovely big window
over the breakfast nook and the tolerance of my bride for
Bogens on the table top. :)
I just meant that the E-1 +180/2.8 is another one of the
more congenial couplings of the old and new, I gather like
the E-1 and 200/4 (my old one of which Schnozzy now owns and
I miss it horribly at times with its beautiful silver nose).
But the 180/2.8 is some solace for that. :)
I continue to be impressed with focusing on the E-1 screen.
I know it's not as great as with my OM-2S or OM-4 and
2-series screen, but I honestly don't find myself yearning
for the wonderful OM viewfinder as I thought I would. I'm
extremely lucky to have a good focusing eye and the diopter
adjustment is a critical factor to get right. (In my
opinion, the adjuster on the dioper is a little too easy to
change by casual bumping -- yet another thing that needs to
be checked from time to time.)
Joel
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> > Nothing spectacular, but I've been trying to catch some
> very shy orioles
> > that are nested somewhere close by. The females are a
> little less
> > shy. This is either a female or a not-quite-mature
> male:
> >
> > http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/day42.html
> >
> > I thought the Zuiko 180/2.8 acquitted itself
> honorably.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|