*Please delete my husband's email address from your lists.
He is deceased as of 01/28/2006. I will be closing his address soon.
Kathleen F. Smoliga
*
Listar wrote:
>------------------------------------
>olympus Digest Wed, 08 Mar 2006 Volume: 03 Issue: 066
>
>In This Issue:
> [OM] Re: 35mm f2.8 Shift
> [OM] : Zuiko 21/2 on that place
> [OM] OM sort of
> [OM] Re: 35mm f2.8 Shift
> [OM] Re: OM sort of
> [OM] OM-1 battery test
> [OM] Re: : Zuiko 21/2 on that place
> [OM] Re: OM sort of
> [OM] (OM) 35-105
> [OM] Re: OMUSA is he crazy? Now: In defense of Alex . . . ki
> [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Attention : 16mm fisheye owners - now: 21/3.5 owner
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Why do people insist on doing their eBay pictures w
> [OM] Re: Why do people insist on doing their eBay pictures w
> [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
> [OM] Re: Zuiko 21/2 on that place
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Sigma lenses
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
> [OM] OM Batter test
> [OM] Re: : Zuiko 21/2 on that place
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
> [OM] Re: OM sort of
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: (OM) 35-105
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: OM Batter test
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Filled the cart at Cameta
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Dvorak - Photojournalist
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Filled the cart at Cameta
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Why do people insist on doing their eBay pictures w
> [OM] Re: Dvorak - Photojournalist
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] 80mm macro experiences?
> [OM] Re: Dvorak - Photojournalist
> [OM] Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Dvorak - Photojournalist
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Digital Holga
> [OM] Re: Dvorak - Photojournalist
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital vs film resolution
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Dvorak - Photojournalist
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] Re: Refurb C-7000
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
> [OM] E-1 ISO 800 Acceptability
> [OM] Re: Digital decisions
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: 35mm f2.8 Shift
>Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:50:03 -0800
>
>
>I'm the one guilty of wondering if any were truly SC. The OM FAQ
>
>http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/LensXCoatings.txt
>
>seems to have limited data. None of the entries that specifically say shift
>claim MC. The MC lenses listed among the shift lenses could be standard
>35/2.8 lenses. Of the 6 lenses reported that specify shift, two specify SC
>while the remaining 4 don't specify anything Only 1 of the 6 lenses has that
>high of a serial number. Iwert posted that a ser no > 110,000 is required to
>be the latest. He also apparently had a lens mount that says only "Japan"
>rather than "Lens Made in Japan".
>
>Gary doesn't give the serial nos. of the two he tested.
>
>I guess the yellow purple reflection is what people use to decide it is SC.
>
>-jeff
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>
>From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>
>AG:
>Gary lens test cites an SC version, FWIW. Also on the Oly SLR FAQ, the
>"multicoating cross reference for Zuiko lenses" implies that the early
>ones were SC. If so, then the "X.zuiko" rule doesn't apply for these lenses.
>
>I checked mine again, it's "Zuiko" only, and the colour is purple-yellow.
>
>Martin
>
>
>AG Schnozz wrote:
> >
> > Well, SN 10088X is classic purple-yellow.
>
>I wrote:
>
> >> Were any of them really SC? They are all black nosed labeled
> >> simply Zuiko. The coating clearly changed presumably for the
> >> better but none seem to fall into the early SC catergory.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:12:18 +1300
>Subject: [OM] : Zuiko 21/2 on that place
>
>
>Hi all
>
>Re:
>
>
>>Interesting to see the advertising and who bought this lens.
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7596179253&ssPage
>>Name=ADME:B
>>
>>
> the buyer, HATAM, is the guy who some 1 - 2 months ago was seen
>promoting the Zuiko 21/2 for use on C*n*n digitals. I seem to remember a
>while ago he had about 8 of them.
>
>Brian
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:12:23 +1300
>Subject: [OM] OM sort of
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Some times I can't help myself. Prices are getting ridiculous for some nice
>glass.
>
>On trademe there was a Tokina RMC 135/2.8 with a starting price of $15 NZ.
>
>For those stateside, that's about $10. No photo, so I asked a few questions.
>
>I didn't really want it as I have a Zuiko 135/3.5. So I didn't bid, and
>neither did
>anybody else.
>
>As is usual on trademe, those who have shown a written interest sometimes
>are offered a second bite at the cherry when the auction is over. He offered
>it
>to me for the original $15, $5 postage. So I bit.
>
>It seems like a very nice lens and when the glass is cleaned up a little, will
>seem like new. Seems sharp enough. $15 !!!
>
>Brian
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
>Subject: [OM] Re: 35mm f2.8 Shift
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:20:00 +0000
>
>Well, to further complicate matters, I have just now compared my 35 shift to
>my 35/2, which I know to be multi-coated, if for no other reason, because it
>says "MC" on the lens ring. The reflections are identical.
>
>Walt
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>I'm the one guilty of wondering if any were truly SC. The OM FAQ
>>
>>http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/LensXCoatings.txt
>>
>>seems to have limited data. None of the entries that specifically say shift
>>claim MC. The MC lenses listed among the shift lenses could be standard
>>35/2.8 lenses. Of the 6 lenses reported that specify shift, two specify SC
>>while the remaining 4 don't specify anything Only 1 of the 6 lenses has that
>>high of a serial number. Iwert posted that a ser no > 110,000 is required to
>>be the latest. He also apparently had a lens mount that says only "Japan"
>>rather than "Lens Made in Japan".
>>
>>Gary doesn't give the serial nos. of the two he tested.
>>
>>I guess the yellow purple reflection is what people use to decide it is SC.
>>
>>-jeff
>>
>>----Original Message Follows----
>>
>>From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>AG:
>>Gary lens test cites an SC version, FWIW. Also on the Oly SLR FAQ, the
>>"multicoating cross reference for Zuiko lenses" implies that the early
>>ones were SC. If so, then the "X.zuiko" rule doesn't apply for these lenses.
>>
>>I checked mine again, it's "Zuiko" only, and the colour is purple-yellow.
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>
>>AG Schnozz wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, SN 10088X is classic purple-yellow.
>>
>>I wrote:
>>
>> >> Were any of them really SC? They are all black nosed labeled
>> >> simply Zuiko. The coating clearly changed presumably for the
>> >> better but none seem to fall into the early SC catergory.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:27:57 -0500
>From: ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: OM sort of
>
>
>Indeed. I find myself really fighting the buy reflex as wonderful
>film-centric gear shows up at "yikes!" prices. It's really noticeable
>in medium format kit. I know that at some point I'll have the extra
>cash and will end up with an RZ or 'blad again because the used market
>is overloaded with them and prices are relatively low. And I think
>they'll go even lower over the years.
>
>My standing joke on this subject is that I'll walk into a rummage sale
>ten years from now and find a nice 'blad kit in box on the floor with
>a sign saying, "Make Offer!"
>
>ScottGee1
>
>
>On 3/7/06, Brian Swale <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Some times I can't help myself. Prices are getting ridiculous for some nice
>>glass.
>>
>>On trademe there was a Tokina RMC 135/2.8 with a starting price of $15 NZ.
>>
>>For those stateside, that's about $10. No photo, so I asked a few questions.
>>
>>I didn't really want it as I have a Zuiko 135/3.5. So I didn't bid, and
>>neither did
>>anybody else.
>>
>>As is usual on trademe, those who have shown a written interest sometimes
>>are offered a second bite at the cherry when the auction is over. He offered
>>it
>>to me for the original $15, $5 postage. So I bit.
>>
>>It seems like a very nice lens and when the glass is cleaned up a little, will
>>seem like new. Seems sharp enough. $15 !!!
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:56:19 -0500
>From: Russ Butler <russ@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] OM-1 battery test
>
>Somewhere I ran across reference to an undocumented battery test for the
>OM-1 or 1n. Pretty sure I saw it in this list's archive but of course, I
>didn't save it and now can't find it.
>
>Any help really appreciated.
>
>
>Russ Butler (nj usa)
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:41:08 +1030
>From: Andrew L Wendelborn <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: : Zuiko 21/2 on that place
>
>At 5:12 PM +1300 2006.03.08, Brian Swale wrote re:
>
>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7596179253&ssPageName=ADME:B
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>the buyer, HATAM, is the guy who some 1 - 2 months ago was seen
>>promoting the Zuiko 21/2 for use on C*n*n digitals. I seem to remember a
>>while ago he had about 8 of them.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Obviously wants to preserve that number -- he is selling one at the same time
>as buying this one. See #7597176915. Some difference in price though.
>
>
>regards
> Andrew
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: [OM] Re: OM sort of
>From: VS <VS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:26:17 +0100
>
>In the message I received, ScottGee1 writes:
>
>
>
>>My standing joke on this subject is that I'll walk into a rummage sale
>>ten years from now and find a nice 'blad kit in box on the floor with
>>a sign saying, "Make Offer!"
>>
>>
>
>Rather than a 'blad, pick up a Rollei. Unlike their F-series TLRs, the
>6008 systems have really dropped in price. Yes, they're not as common on
>that site as 'blads, but at least you can be sure you get a relatively
>new camera with built-in meter and motor drive.
>
>Did I mention that Rollei is easier to handhold than 'blad? ;-)
>
>Saso,
>who sold a 'blad to get a rollie
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:26:34 +1100
>From: Andrew McPhee <macca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: OM sort of
>
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Some times I can't help myself. Prices are getting ridiculous for some nice
>>glass.
>>
>>On trademe there was a Tokina RMC 135/2.8 with a starting price of $15 NZ.
>>
>>For those stateside, that's about $10. No photo, so I asked a few questions.
>>
>>I didn't really want it as I have a Zuiko 135/3.5. So I didn't bid, and
>>neither did
>>anybody else.
>>
>>As is usual on trademe, those who have shown a written interest sometimes
>>are offered a second bite at the cherry when the auction is over. He
>>offered it
>>to me for the original $15, $5 postage. So I bit.
>>
>>It seems like a very nice lens and when the glass is cleaned up a little,
>>will
>>seem like new. Seems sharp enough. $15 !!!
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>
>
>
>You did well Brian.
>
>I watched a Zuiko 65-200 zoom sell on Aussie oboy last night for AU$28.30,
>I was tempted to make a bid but didn't.
>
>OTOH, Oly 'collectibles' seem to be going up in price. A common Pen EES2
>sold recently for AU$85 and a Pen EED in the UK went for an absolutely
>ridiculous AU$207. Or maybe these are just cases of oboy fever, who knows...
>
>
>
>Andrew McPhee
>http://www.dev-stop-fix.com/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:20:36 +0100 (CET)
>Subject: [OM] Re: Why do people insist on doing their eBay pictures while naked
>From: "Jonas Otter" <jonas@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
>Look in the mirror in the top left corner:
>
>http://www.bestofblocket.se/bilder/blocket_73.jpg
>
>He is selling his dining room table and chairs.
>
>Jonas
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:22:28 +1300
>Subject: [OM] (OM) 35-105
>
>
>Hi,
>Just spotted; that lens somebody was asking about.
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597920314
>Brian
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 04:27:15 -0600
>From: "Komtanoo Pinpimai" <romerun@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: OMUSA is he crazy? Now: In defense of Alex . . . kind of . .
>
>
>People like alex, sometimes, is useful. Since some camera gears on the
>bay, are over described. I've just bought a lens described as Mint
>from a seller, but when it arrived the lens has a noticeable ugly
>scratch in its front.
>
>I've never bought a thing from alex, but if he acts as the man in the
>middle selling only the real mint condition, acting like KEH on the
>bay, and be happy to be suffered from fraud description from some
>sellers, he would be useful to somebody who chooses quality before
>price.
>
>On 3/7/06, NSURIT@xxxxxxx <NSURIT@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>In a message dated 3/7/2006 8:08:10 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>russ@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>>I don't know about this particular case but often see the phrase "like
>>new" buried deep in his "NEW" titled listings. That's deceptive and on
>>the edge of fraud but his customers don't seem to complain. Of course
>>spending 2-3x the reasonable price on anything often makes one believe
>>that they've bought a quality item.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hmm, I sometimes find myself wanting to defend this guy. It doesn't always
>>feel right, as his descriptions are often fraudulent or at the very least
>>deceptive and I find that particularly distasteful. I currently have a few
>>items queued up to be listed on eBay. Some, but not many, are "new", some
>>"like
>>new" and most are some variation of "used." When they are listed, I will do
>>my best to provide an accurate assessment of their condition. Given that
>>irrespective of where I'm selling (either here or on eBay), I want people to
>>be
>>happy with their purchase, I will generally offered a money back guarantee,
>>even on stuff that has some flies on it which have been revealed prior to the
>>purchase. I haven't had very many returns. The only one which comes to
>>mind is a "mint" OM 2S, whose circuit decided to die between my home and the
>>buyers. As I recall, I refunded all monies paid, plus return shipping. That
>>was the "right" thing to do and the type of service that results in my
>>having a
>> little over 300 positive feedback responses on eBay and a large number of
>>positive exchanges on this list. It is also the type of thing which has me
>>thinking seriously about becoming a seller's assistant with eBay.
>>
>>Now, let me step down from my "self promoting" soap box and get to the point
>>of the positive comment about Alex. What I would like to talk about is
>>"fair market value", which is a price at which a willing seller will sell
>>and a
>>willing buyer will buy. Assuming an accurate description of the item (often
>>times that is a stretch with this guy), each of Alex's successful auctions
>>represents an item being sold at "fair market value or price". They may not
>>be
>>sold at a price I would pay, however for someone else they represent a fair
>>price and represent value for their exchange of dollars, pesos, pounds or
>>whatever. So the assessment of 2 or 3 times what an item is worth, might be
>>more accurately expressed at 2 or 3 times what it is worth to me. I also
>>think
>>that most people, myself included, know when we have paid too much for an
>>item. Rather than feeling like I got a quality item (which may be the
>>case), I
>>usually feel like I've screwed myself (as opposed to being screwed by someone
>>else). I try to learn from these experiences and to not be discouraged
>>from the activity of acquiring stuff from alternative channels of commerce .
>>. .
>>I guess eBay use to be that and probably isn't any longer.
>>
>>I emailed Alex recently to inquire about an item and got a prompt response
>>with enough accurate information to let me decide not to buy something he had
>>on his list of items for sale. We all know about his inflated descriptions.
>>We also know that he has bought new stuff from John and others and so does
>>have some "new" stuff. I would buy from his eBay auctions, however I
>>would do
>>as I usually do when buying from eBay and ask a bunch of questions before
>>bidding. If I ask the right questions of any seller and get the right
>>answers,
>>I'll end up buying at a price which is right for me. Right questions
>>usually generate right answers. <{8^) Bill Barber
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>when you were born, a problem was solved
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:13:16 -0200
>Subject: [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
>From: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Hey Russ, good question.
>Hope I don't have to add a digital voltmeter to my equipment :-)
>
>Fernando
>- waiting for the wise answer too.
>
>
>on 8/03/2006 02:56, Russ Butler at russ@xxxxxxxxxx, wrote:
>
>
>
>>Somewhere I ran across reference to an undocumented battery test for the
>>OM-1 or 1n. Pretty sure I saw it in this list's archive but of course, I
>>didn't save it and now can't find it.
>>
>>Any help really appreciated.
>>
>>
>>Russ Butler (nj usa)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:12:54 -0500
>From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
>
>I'm really not sure what Russ is looking for as I can never recall
>seeing a battery test here for the mercury battery in an OM-1.
>
>But I can think of an easy way of testing it which doesn't require any
>voltmeters or testing equipment other than a gray card. Assuming that
>you have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the meter, just do a
>"sunny-16" check with your gray card. Of course, if you're unsure of
>the accuracy of the meter and (of course) don't have a new mercury
>battery... convert to silver oxide.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>
>
>>Hey Russ, good question.
>>Hope I don't have to add a digital voltmeter to my equipment :-)
>>
>>Fernando
>>- waiting for the wise answer too.
>>
>>
>>on 8/03/2006 02:56, Russ Butler at russ@xxxxxxxxxx, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Somewhere I ran across reference to an undocumented battery test for the
>>>OM-1 or 1n. Pretty sure I saw it in this list's archive but of course, I
>>>didn't save it and now can't find it.
>>>
>>>Any help really appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>Russ Butler (nj usa)
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:41:22 +0100
>Subject: [OM] Re: OM-1 battery test
>From: Johan Malmstrom <jmalmstrom@xxxxxxx>
>
>Maybe you (Russ) are referring to the not so undocumented, but not so widely
>spread meter-nail test. You can always make the meter-nail rise by setting
>shutter speed to B, when a lens is mounted on the camera and power switch is
>set to OFF. This is a pure mechanical "test" of the nail.
>
>/ Johan
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
