Difference between revisions of "Talk:Olympus OM-1/2/3/4"
m |
Rebollo fr (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
There are no full specifications for any of the cameras listed (like there are for most others), is there any reason not to? [[User:Kongzi|Kongzi]] 07:56, 6 May 2010 (EDT) | There are no full specifications for any of the cameras listed (like there are for most others), is there any reason not to? [[User:Kongzi|Kongzi]] 07:56, 6 May 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :There is no particular reason. But tables of specifications are often quite ugly, and in case we add some, we should be careful to keep the (quite) beautiful page layout. --[[User:Rebollo fr|rebollo_fr]] 09:58, 7 May 2010 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:58, 7 May 2010
Some changes
somebody at minolta-forum.de complained about OM-3s descrition. Tried to brush it up
edited by U. kulick on May 5, 2006
- I went forward in the same direction, with more details of the OM-3 and OM-4 metering system.
- I only removed the mention of the OM-3 as a "popular camera". It is popular and desirable today, in the user / collector market, but at the time it did not sell well, while it was only a little more expensive than the OM-4 ($339 vs $300 in 1986 according to this page). --Rebollo fr 12:19, 6 May 2006 (EDT)
Reverted a mistake
This diff was adding a mistake to the page and I reverted it: both the OM-1 and OM-1n were designed for mercury batteries. The OM-1n was presented in 1979 and the mercury battery interdiction occured much later. --Rebollo fr 19:39, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
Specifications?
There are no full specifications for any of the cameras listed (like there are for most others), is there any reason not to? Kongzi 07:56, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
- There is no particular reason. But tables of specifications are often quite ugly, and in case we add some, we should be careful to keep the (quite) beautiful page layout. --rebollo_fr 09:58, 7 May 2010 (EDT)
