davecaz

Well, if they're not, then they're overcooked :D

Thanks very much for that information!

Nice shot, and nice to see you posting, again. :) I understand what they mean with that sign, but it sounds like they're advertising a taser/stun-gun designed to be used on sandwiches. :D

I checked my Metro. It's got a stuck shutter, but I'm in class all weekend, anyway.

Yes, something is certainly wrong with it, and it may be due to being dropped or banged. Actually, I suppose it almost certainly is, because it's unlikely to be a manufacturing defect. But, I haven't even been able to use it, so I haven't had a chance to damage it. I tried looking through the back of the camera as I mounted a 50mm and the zoom, to see if I could spot the problem. I couldn't. Not all of the mount is visible, that way, and I'm not sure the cause would be visible, anyway. I was thinking that it might not be too difficult to replace the mount on the zoom with the mount from a donor lens. Has anyone here tried that before? Oh, and thanks for all the input! :)

Possibly you're looking at the built-in hood, which is the outermost ring? The filter ring is just outside the "beauty ring", with the lens specs printed on it. I see the dings on the hood. I don't see any on the filter ring. Ahhhh! Now, I get what you mean. I don't know. I'll look and see. Some of my OM Lenses are tighter than others, but the zoom is a whole different category beyond tight. Agreed. They do show wear/damage. I don't know their function, so I don't know if it's relevant, or not. Yeah, I'm going to try that, now that I understand what Dave meant. I had the same thought about the dings on the front being unlikely to affect the lens mount, but I don't know for sure.

Is it? It's certainly possible, but I must be missing the signs. Could you tell me what you're seeing that leads you to that conclusion, so I might not have to post a similar thread in the future?

Yeah, returns are a pain but, while there may be lots of other auctions of similar items, they can hardly be better. With wordier auctions, you have to be much more cautious, because most descriptions can be interpreted multiple ways or subject to opinion, allowing dishonest sellers to weasel out. "Perfect" can't be interpreted to mean anything but perfect. It either is, or it isn't. I agree that that kind of cavalier attitude on the part of a seller may make a buyer uneasy, but it's a safe gamble, these days. I don't expect anything to be perfect but, if someone tells me that an item that I want is perfect, I'll buy it because it's probably good enough, even though it's not perfect.

Thanks! Very interesting.

Why would you expect anything else from someone who posted a 2 word, 1 photo listing? Why? If they say it's perfect and you get it and find a problem, you just send it back and eBay will give you back every cent you paid, including shipping.

Well, it's a chain, so they're probably all pretty much the same. Not sure I'd drive an hour to get to one, though. Unless everything is an hour away.

Bill - Nice results. Nothing wrong with that zoom. Dave - Really nice color in this one. And what the heck IS the Galloping Goose?

Yeah, the 7000i's sold by the boatload. I bought one, and still have it, mostly because there are so many out there that you can't give them away. But, the 8000i is very different story. I'll be really interested in seeing your results. I have a Metro sitting on my shelf, and I've never shot it. I can't remember if it's working, or not. Thank you! I'm happy to hear someone else express a view that I share, but which doesn't seem widely accepted. I've never understood why. People will insist on the fastest possible lenses and then stop them down to at least f/5.6 to get maximum sharpness, when macro lenses are sharp wide open at f/2.8, or even f/2.

Sorry, Dave. You lost me on that one. I can't use Bulb unless the lens is mounted, and I can't mount the lens. If I could, I wouldn't be able to see the lens mount. Yep. I wasn't saying the spikes were to blame, I was just pointing out any noticeable differences. I don't think I have any measuring tools accurate enough to measure the bayonet lugs (teeth).

Nice shot. I've eaten at a Texas Roadhouse. The food was good, but it was NOISY!

The 8000i is a rare beast. Didn't they only produce that for one year, before introducing the xi models? Or did production run concurrently?

Are you saying that my OM Mount issue is "too little of a thing to make a post about?" o_O

Agreed

"Minty" - indicates either an idiot seller, who doesn't realize that the word is meaningless, or a wiseguy who hopes that buyers won't know that

Hi, I'm hoping someone can tell me what's going on with one of my Olympus OM System lenses. Specifically, the 65-200mm f/4 Zuiko Auto Zoom. I have an OM-1 and an OM-2, both with 50mm lenses. Either 50mm fits on either camera body, as expected. The 65-200 does not fit on either of them. When I try to mount it, the lugs align and it seems to mate but, when I try to twist it into position, it will only turn about 1/3 of the distance required, at which point it feels like it's binding. The mounts are visibly different between the 50s and the zoom. The two 50s are the same design, but the zoom does not have the "OM shield" and it has spikes where the 50s don't. I'm not very good at this sort of thing, but I tried to take photos to demonstrate what I mean. Here is the trio. This is one of the 50s, showing the "shield". This is the zoom, with the "spikes" on the left. And, just to prove that I didn't accidentally grab the wrong lens, here's the other end. I have several other OM lenses. All of them except my 135mm f/3.5 have a "shield", though the size varies. The 135 has no shield, but also lacks the spikes on the zoom's mount. All of the other lenses mount without any trouble. I don't believe any of them have that SAEA marking, either. Any idea what I'm running into, here? Thanks!

It's a moot point, now that the OP has found a solution, but Sodium Thiosulfate is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most effective and safe medicines needed in a health system, which ought to be enough to allow for it's importation to pretty much anywhere. Just sayin'.

No

If the feeling doesn't pass, let me know and I'll load up the truck with empty boxes and bubble wrap and be right there :D

Thanks, Sandy. I hadn't seen these, before. It's amazing how much of a difference color makes. I wouldn't have expected it to matter for purely documentary shots, but it makes a huge difference.

William Michael's explanation is, of course, correct. But, to help you understand why you need to do that, you need to know what your camera and modern lenses are doing for you that the old one is not. And that is, they have auto-aperture functionality that lets you compose with one aperture, but shoot with another. For example, if you're using your Canon "nifty fifty" and you adjust the aperture to, say, f/16, you can still see the subject in the viewfinder because you're actually looking through the lens wide open, at f/1.8. It only closes down to the selected aperture (f/16, in our example) when you trigger the shutter, then immediately pops back to wide open so you can compose the next shot. To do this for you, the lens and camera need to communicate with each other, and both need to support this feature. Some old lenses have it, some don't. Some have it, but can turn it off to work with cameras that don't support it. In your case, the lens probably doesn't have it and, if it does, it's not communicating effectively with your camera. The older lenses did this mechanically. Newer ones do it electronically. Not all cameras support both and not all adapters do, either. So, follow William Michael's advice and have fun with it. It's a whole different experience, and you'll learn a lot from it if you stick with it.