'Drop tests' are notoriously unreliable. All depends on how the camera
lands. To compare - dropped an OM-1 75 feet while rock climbing, bounced
off a solid boulder at the base of the climb, big dent next to the wind
knob. Camera still works - 20 years later!
Jim Couch
On 5/24/2012 12:37 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> There is absolutely no question about the fact that a Nikon F, and the
> early Nikkors, are of much superiour construction quality to any OM
> camera.
>
> * I had an OM fall a mere 40cm onto a tile floor (a "gentle" fall),
> and the shutter speed mechnism was totally broken
> * My 1995 OM-3Ti has required service twice to keep accurate slow
> shutter speeds, my Nikon F has never been services since 1970
> * Squeeze almost any OM lens, and the focusing resistance changes
> (even becomes impossible to focus on some lenses) - squeeze a Pre-Ai
> 1960 Nikkor lens with all your might and it stil focuses smoother than
> any OM lens
>
> Let's not delude ourselves. If this doesn't suffice, try opening up
> both an OM and a Nikon F, and you'll see a massive difference inside.
> The OM's are still sexier, and the OM lenses render nicer.
>
> Dawid
>
>
> On 24 May 2012, at 6:47 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
>
>> Since when are OM's less reliable than Nikon F's? I keep hearing
>> this old
>> crap, let me tell you, I have owned and shot professionally both
>> systems,
>> still have some of both, and have never noticed any difference in
>> durability
>> or reliability between the two. It would seem that the Nikons have
>> more
>> ability to shrug off abuse, but since when should we abuse our
>> equipment in
>> the first place? And that's not to say that I haven't banged mine both
>> around some.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|