Thanks Walt. You made my morning with that one.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Walt Wayman
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:19 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: OT..but Optical
I've stayed away from the binocular discussion because I'm at the low end of
the spectrum, but now that Winsor has so eloquently agreed with my heretofore
unexpessed opinion, I will weigh in. I am completely satisfied with my $220
Olympus Magellan 8x42 binoculars. They're waterproof, have great eye relief
for those who wear spectacles (or tend to make one of themselves), and are far
better optically than my scratched up eyeglasses and aging eyes anyway. They
may lack the fancy lark spit lens coating, the dyed baby seal bladder covering,
and the musk ox scrotum case, but they get the job done. And they're OLYMPUS.
:-)
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
--snip--
>
> My other experience, having owned some very expensive Leitz 8x40s and
> some very inexpensive(less than $100) Pentax 8x40s and Nikon 8x25(or
> so) is that unless you have very specialized needs the differences
> and their costs between binoculars don't buy you any better seeing.
> So a lot of what you are buying is prestige and pride of ownership,
> if that matters to you. I am afraid that binoculars are the fur coats
> for men, the more expensive they are the more desirable.
>
--snip--
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|