In my previous message, I mixed up references to books by Michael Levy
and Ivor Matanle.
While Levy does display ignorance (Olympus 105 ! ), Matanle in his
'Collecting and Using
Classic SLRs' says the following about Olympus
* Olympus lenses tend to have high contrast, which masks any lack of
resolution (??)
* Their lenses on the longer side are not as good as the Canons and
Nikons ( Exactly which of
Olympus's longer lenses are not as good as which of C's and
N's . ? )
* The OM bodies (at least the OM 1) tend to be brittle. He even says
that while Ns and Cs might
survive a fall, the OM1 probably wouldn't. (Can someone confirm that
?)
*Something about the tripod sockets not being strong enough.
*The OM cameras are too small(for him at least) ,hinting that was a
reason Olympus didn't become
popular with pro photographers. (How many pro photographers regularly
take hand held pictures ? And how
many wouldn't prefer to carry a smaller/lighter body than a giant
plastic brick ?)
.
----------
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:10 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] New book barely mentions OM
Amherst Media has a new book out titled something like "How to Select
and Use Classic Cameras" by Michael Levy. In his 35mm SLR section he
says only Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus SLR's should be
considered worth collecting and using. But he contradicts himself
later
on with Alpa and Leicaflex lust. He devotes lots of text to the
Nikon
F, but short changes everything else, including Olympus. To the
Olympus
OM, he devotes one paragraph, in which he says he had a (presumably
used) OM-1, but it "died" after 2 years. (Why didn't you fix it,
Michael?). But he really liked the "105mm" Olympus lens. Huh? A
105mm
Olympus lens?
Golly gee, another poorly edited book (there are lots of other
problems). I think it even had a copyright date of 2002. It's at
Border's.
BTW, I'd consider a Konica over a Minolta SLR any day of the week!
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
----------
From: "Skip Williams" <skipwilliamsom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:17 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Skip Williams" <skipwilliamsom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] New book barely mentions OM
There are many other brands to consider when collecting other than
the
Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Alpa and Leicaflex mentioned.
Obviously this guy was not very objective, the book poorly edited and
vetted, and research or caveats not given as to the author's
preferences and
experience.
I can think of many other SLR's that merit consideration for
collecting:
Contax, Miranda, Konica, Zeiss/Icon, Practica, Topcon, Zenit, Exakta,
Kiev
to name a few.
Geez...it's surprising to see such poorly produced books as this
today.
Michael should get a copy of Ivor Matanle's two books or his series
of
articles in Amatuer Photographer, which I really enjoy. They talk
much more
about selecting and using cameras, and they cover a wide range of
modern
classics.
Skip
****** I M P O R T A N T R E P L Y I N F O ************
Please adddress ALL offlist messages to skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list
subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages
addressed
here.
***********************************************************
>From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] New book barely mentions OM
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:10:42 -0700
>
>Amherst Media has a new book out titled something like "How to
Select
>and Use Classic Cameras" by Michael Levy. In his 35mm SLR section
he
>says only Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus SLR's should be
>considered worth collecting and using. But he contradicts himself
later
>on with Alpa and Leicaflex lust. He devotes lots of text to the
Nikon
>F, but short changes everything else, including Olympus. To the
Olympus
>OM, he devotes one paragraph, in which he says he had a (presumably
>used) OM-1, but it "died" after 2 years. (Why didn't you fix it,
>Michael?). But he really liked the "105mm" Olympus lens. Huh? A
105mm
>Olympus lens?
>
>Golly gee, another poorly edited book (there are lots of other
>problems). I think it even had a copyright date of 2002. It's at
>Border's.
>
>BTW, I'd consider a Konica over a Minolta SLR any day of the week!
>
>Gary Reese
>Las Vegas, NV
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|