Interesting observations, Winsor. I replaced the 1-13 in my OM-2S with a new
2-13 about two weeks ago and have had almost the opposite experience. The
difference in brightness was immediate, at all focal lengths and with both
fast and slow lens. Both indoors and out, in bright and dim light, focusing
and viewing was much easier. I also tried it with a 2X converter, which was
definitely easier to focus. The split image and micro-prism were still
useable even in dim light with fast lenses. The focusing aids do "disappear"
in both dim and bright light, but to me this is an advantage as they do not
detract from the image as with the 1-13. They're still there and easy to
find if you need to use them. The ground glass portion is also much easier
to focus. The image snaps in. I don't know if our different experiences are
due to differences between the OM-4T and the OM-2S, as I don't own a 4T at
this time to compare. All in all, I'm a very happy camper. It's the best
$36.95 I've spent in quite some time. Definitely a recommended upgrade,
IMHO.
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>I just got one of the new series 2-13 focussing screens. I installed it in
>my OM4T. It has taken a while to figure out the difference. In most
>situations I cannot tell any difference. In very dim light with a fast lens
>the illumination of the focussing circle and the ground glass is the same,
>so it is next to impossible to find the focussing aids in the middle. With
>the old screen the focussing circle was lighter than the ground glass and
>easy to see. You can focus either one using the ground glass in this
>situation. In the old one the split image was usable in addition. (I was
>able to do side by side with my OM1n)
>
>I could not detect any difference in brightness in normal lighting
>situations. I even removed the lens from both bodies and held the
>viewfinder of each camera to an eye to seen whether I could detect any
>light level difference. Of course I realize that my eyes adjust
>automatically. With the viewfinders held together(top to top) so that a
>little piece of the field of each could be seen simulataneously it seemed
>as if I could see difference, but it was hard to tell due to the
>differences in the way the ground glass of each transmitted light. An
>interesting phenomenon of the new screen is that without a lens in place
>you can see blob-like colored shapes through it, but the old screen in the
>same situation is evenly illuminated. Although I could make out the
>granularity of the screens and some of the fresnel lines, I could not
>subjectively say anything about the differences.
>
>Now here it is, the situation where the new screen seems to make a
>substantial difference. I put a 2X teleconverter onto my 200/F4 yield an F8
>combination and focussed inside the house on a dimly lit, deep book shelf
>with some objects on it. With the OM1n and the 1-13 it was impossible to
>focuss on a brightly colored striped kaleidoscope and just possible to
>focus on a small silver candlestick. All focussing was done with the ground
>glass because the focussing circle was blacked out. With the same lens
>combination on the OM4T the focussing circle was also blacked out, but I
>had no trouble focussing on the candle stick. It just popped in
>effortlessly. I was even able to focus on the kaleidoscope without much
>effort.
>
>My conclusion is that the new screens are good in dim light with really
>slow lenses(maybe a 400/F6.3 or a 500/F8), or moderately slow lenses
>combined with teleconverters. In most other situations there is no
>appreciable advantage or even a clearly obvious difference. With a fast
>lens in dim light, there may even be an advantage with the older screen
>because the other focussing aid may still work and you can find where they
>are.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|