As I recall, these had a high failure rate. /jmac
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of John Hermanson
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:25 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: ] Re: A BS statement from the 35mm newsgroup
I remember handling the Pentax ME and was not impressed. Sure, it was
smaller than an OM-1, but it seemed to go smaller for smalls sake, with
no gain in handling. Body felt like it could be twisted out of shape if
you wanted. There were fans of this body, I'm sure, but it seemed like
one-upmanship with no payoff.
___________________________________
John Hermanson
Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743
631-424-2121 | Olympus OM Service since 1977
http://www.zuiko.com | omtech1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove 'spam' when writing
Brian Swale wrote:
> Joel wrote
>
>>LOL! I remember reading a comment on the N*kon list once by a *woman*
>>who said that Olympus cameras and lenses are too small and that the
>>additional weight of the N*kon made it easier to handhold more
>>steadily.
>>
>>I do think my N*kons are more durable than my OMs. But I don't know
>>if anyone makes a more durable DSLR than the E-1 though.
>>
>>Joel W.
>
>
> Well, here's my penny-worth. Anyone who has studied elementary physics
> (weight, mass, work etc) will know about the effect of inertia and the
> mechanism of conservation of energy where items of very unequal mass are
> concerned.
>
> This is what is in operation here.
>
> A few weeks back I reported on what a close friend and knowledgeable
> amateur photographer of some ability of some 35 years' standing said to me
> when we discussed this topic. It was the era when Pentax produced one very
> small SLR about the size and weight of an OM-1. My friend Dave had the
> loan of one of these Pentaxes for a week or more, and ran about 20 rolls
of
> film through it. Not only did he have problems getting his fingers on the
> necessary controls (they were too small, and being at that time engaged in
> demandingly physical work he had strong, quite solid hands with thick
> fingers), but most of the frames were so blurred that he threw away all of
the
> 20 rolls. He then bought Minolta which he has stayed with since then.
> Happily and with no regrets.
>
> If there is vibration from one or more sources in a camera, and if, when
> comparing the mass (weight) of the component causing the vibration with
the
> rest of the camera, it is relatively large, then all other things being
equal the
> camera with the relatively smaller vibrating component will yield sharper
> images.
>
> The heavier body has more inertia, therefore the source of vibration will
move
> it less.
>
> To use an automotive analogy, in case what I am saying is too abstruse,
> imagine a Greyhound bus hit by a BMC mini cooper car. It probably wouldn't
> move the Greyhound around too much. Imagine now the same bus impacted
> at the same relative speeds by a Hummer. The Greyhound would be in bad
> shape due to the greater size of the relatively larger moving component.
>
> This is one reason why I have a winder attached to my OM4Ti. Since my
> arms are now quite light, I figure that the extra mass of the winder will
aid in
> IS when taking hand-held shots.
>
> This matter is probably one of the reasons why the mirror is so small in
the
> E-1. Small mirror, less vibration.
>
> Exacta cameras were also relatively heavy.
>
> Brian
>
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/x-vcard
-- File: omtech1.vcf
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|