It was pro quality, but how many actually used it?
Very few. For interesting reasons.
Support - never an Oly strong point to say the least. Canon always
offered pro's excellent support, Nikon not so good. You could have
died in the wilderness waiting for Oly to notice you. Steven Scharf
told me that when he viited Phillip island for the motorcycle Grand
prix, he discovered that his 400mm wasn't quite long enough. Canon
had a media support tent there and lent him a 600mm. Can you imagine
Olympus even beginning to think of that?
Availability. You could always find a replacement N or C body or a
place not too far away where you could rent a BWL (big white lens) to
fit your C or N. Anyone try to rent an OM 350/2.8 in...
well...anywhere? The pro shops around here rent out - C and N.
You could get them fixed anywhere.
I met a newpaper photg some years ago in film days using an F4 or 5.
He had a Leica M4 in the car for personal use. I know that people
like Jane Bown used Oly and did fine work, but she wasn't standing in
the middle of a war protest fighting off protesters with a camera
whack around the scone.
C and N were the Ford and GM choices - anything else was for love,
not work. Or for people who could afford to say "I want that, get it
for me."
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 11/05/2007, at 11:29 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:
> Hm. Why, then, do I keep hearing pros say that the OM system was
> definitely
> one of the better professional systems out there?
>
> No, it wasn't a market leader, but it was definitely pro-quality,
> at least
> until autofocus became the pro standard.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|