Subject: | Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 28, 24, 21, 20mm |
---|---|
From: | Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:02:32 -0500 |
> > Looks like your ego had one of those big Iowa truckstop breakfasts. ;^) > LOL. Rockwell isn't the only Ken that shapes global photographic equipment demands. Don't forget, that an almost single-handed effort on my part kept the OM-2S from completely falling into a disrespected has-been pile. For quite some time the 2S was being dissed left and right and I alone stepped out in praise of the camera to raise it up to its rightful place. I took some flaming arrows on that until one by one others spoke up and agreed that the camera had some worth. I think there are a few list-members that will back that up as they wouldn't touch the camera and now it's among their favorites. AG (it ain't bragging if you can back it up) Schnozz :) -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Off-topic: Spotted Technorama for a good price, Dawid Loubser |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] 5 images, and some technical observations regarding ye olde technologies, Ken Norton |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 28, 24, 21, 20mm, Joel Wilcox |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 28, 24, 21, 20mm, Joel Wilcox |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |