Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] VF sizes
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:44:10 -0500

> Bill I'm sure that Leica's engineers will be happy to see your design for
> the shrunken M10 ;-)  ;-)  ;-) There's not a lot of room in there!
> FWIW I think that Olympus wanted to call the first OM the M1 but Leica
> objected. May be entirely an internet myth!
> 
> M9
> W 139 x H 80 x D 37 mm
> 
> OM2
> W 136 x H 83 x D 50 mm
> 
> I guess the larger depth to the lens mount with the OM 2 was due to the
> larger flange focal distance.
> 
> Lots of micro four thirds folks are blessing those larger distances now. So
> are the adaptor manufacturers.
> 
> 
> FWIW I think that Olympus wanted to call the first OM the M1 but Leica
> objected. May be entirely an internet myth!
> 
> Cheers
> Geoff
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
> 
> 
> On 12 March 2010 14:51, Sue Pearce <bs.pearce at cox.net> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, the D3 has a good but not great VF, but...
>> 
>> There's no reason that the contents of the M9 couldn't fit into the space
>> of the OM's. Even if slightly expanded, it would be sublime!
>> 
>> Bill Pearce
>> 
Baba Ram Dass  may have had a problem with OM.
Or Allen Ginsberg.

[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner





In reply to: Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] VF sizes)