>> From: aclaudiomolinari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> I read that with OM3 it's better to use circular polarizers: is it true?
>> Thank you Angelo
>From: "Tom Trottier" <infoanim@xxxxxx>
>
>Yes. The OM2s & up need to use circular polarisers...
I think "need" is an overstatement here. You can get away with a linear
polarizer if you are careful to peak the meter reading with the polarizer,
then take a spot if the peaked reading is significantly different than the
reading with the polarizer set where you really want it.
I'm actually quite a bit more careless than this. I just shoot away, and
have never had a bad exposure. If you really try hard, you can make an
overexposed shot by nulling the meter reading with the polarizer, but it
tends to be a sharp dip -- hard to hit by accident. As I recall, the dip is
aligned with the long dimension of the film, so you're more likely to have
problems in portrait orientation with the sun directly overhead.
Also, for the "golden eyes" out there -- a circular polarizer has an extra
layer of glass (quarter-wave plate), and loses a bit more light than a
linear polarizer.
Bottom line: if you're a hobbyist, and would rather spend $50 elsewere, you
can get away with a linear polarizer. (If you're a pro, that $50 would be
made up by saving one otherwise overexposed shot.)
: Jan Steinman <mailto:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068-1331 USA
: +1.503.635.3229
< 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 >
|