Rather than arguing, I will just post numbers and everyone can decide if it is important.
Olympus OM-2: 136.0 x 83.0 x 50.0mm, 520g -> 564.4 cm^3
Nikon FE: 142.0 x 89.5 x 57.5mm, 590g -> 730.8 cm^3 29% larger, 14% heavier
Nikon F3: 148.0 x 96.5 x 69.0, 700g / 745g (HP) -> 74%larger, 35% (43%) heavier
Canon A-1: 141.0 x 92.0 x 48.0mm, 620g -> 622.7 cm^3 10% larger, 19% heavier
That doesn\'t look like a huge difference, but you feel it clearly in yours hands. However, this is far from the whole story: the Olympus lenses are generally very compact compared to the Nikon F-mount and Canon FD-mount lenses of the time, so by the time you have 3-4 lenses in your bag, and maybe a flash, the difference really starts adding up.
Rather than arguing, I will just post numbers and everyone can decide if it is important.
Olympus OM-2: 136.0 x 83.0 x 50.0mm, 520g 564.4 cm^3
Nikon FE: 142.0 x 89.5 x 57.5mm, 590g 730.8 cm^3 29% larger, 14% heavier
Canon A-1: 141.0 x 92.0 x 48.0mm, 620g 622.7 cm^3 10% larger, 19% heavier
That doesn\'t look like a huge difference, but you feel it clearly in yours hands. However, this is far from the whole story: the Olympus lenses are generally very compact compared to the Nikon F-mount and Canon FD-mount lenses of the time, so by the time you have 3-4 lenses in your bag, and maybe a flash, the difference really starts adding up.
Jan 21, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Previous versions of carstenw's message #10268155 « A Digital OM? »
