Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/27

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: olympus vs leica
From: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:07:12 -0600 (CST)

Ok, I >KNOW< I should stay off the olympus thread....those people 
who use those funny little cameras are like a bunch of snake
handling fundamentalists at a tent revival....BUT!!!

I was around in l978-79....Olympus had just pawned off bunches 
of their "lightweights" on the UPI "boys"----I used to string 
for them, and knew some of the Houston crowd.....

Now bear in mind, these guys could reduce a Nikon F to rubble 
in less than a year.....the M4 is a wimp as far as ruggedness
compared to an F.......ya know what?   Those damn Olympi (hehe)
came apart like three-dollar-watches......Good glass? YES.....
small and light?  YES.....but put them in day to day news service, 
that's the end!!!  

Now, I know there's someone out there waiting for me, who's gonna 
claim to have shot 10 rolls a day in rain/dust/mud storms, with 
the same OM-1 that saved him from a stray bullet in '73....you 
know the story.....bring it on...

Walt

On Sat,
27 Feb 1999 raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi wrote:

> > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
> > 
> <snip> 
> > When they say T they are not talking about
> > titanium paint.
> 
> How true! I have examined one used OM-4Ti which did not have 
> much titanium left - and the titanium layer was indeed much thinner 
> than paint. If the OMs were more robust they might have a stronger 
> position among the professionals.
> All the best!
> Raimo
> 
> Photos at: http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
>