Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[Fwd: [OM] 200/4]

Subject: [Fwd: [OM] 200/4]
From: Richard Schaetzl <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:22:24 +0200
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: Re: [OM] 200/4
From: Richard Schaetzl <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:53:04 +0200
Tom Trottier schrieb:

>  I'm surprised that no one is selling a tripod head which incorporates
> dampers yet. I suppose that the more mass attached to the camera, the
> better, tho. 

The problem is, the small space the camera has contact with the tripod
head.
Someone should not underestimate the long lever the converter lens combo
is. The camera-lens mount is just spring loaded, the camera has no good
contact to the tripod head (it´s rubber paded). The whole combo is far
from to be rigid, so maybe only a small force is neccesary to let it
swing like a spring. 

> How about:
>  - a heavy flat plate between the head & camera?  Or attached to the
> camera if the lens is on the tripod?
>  - a carbon fibre (it damps) or lead alloy Quick Release (QR) plate?
>  - a big QR head with a slight concave shape that holds closely to the
> entire base of the camera? especially for the Manfrotto/Bogen 200PL-14
> 3157N  QUICK RELEASE PLATE RECTANGULAR 1/4  that I use!

All this would not damp the lens-converter combo.

> Perhaps leaving any QR on while handholding is even better!

One can leave on the motor drive, would damp vibration due to the
increased mass.


> Oh, Richard, I see your are one of the "stud"s at un-hannover.

Shouldn´t this read XXXXXX at studs uni hannover?

I´m at the law not the vet department, don´t know why the vets are
responsible for networking, but this would explain some odd things. In
fact the vets are not even part of the the university here, they have an
indepedendend faculty the TiHo.
 
> > I was that bold.
> > No, I don´t recomend it for best image quality, but with bright sunshine
> > and short exposure times it´s possible.
> > The reason I did it was, I was so dissapointed with the results of this
> > combo fixed to an tripod (... and I used an OM-4 with aperture/mirror
> > prefire!). In fact the results handholding were better than the one from
> > the tripod (might be a problem of the tripod head too).
> 
> It does sound like a shutter design problem, rather than
> aperture/mirror!

Doubt that, first the shutter is engaged while handholding too, second
Gary Reese tests show no significant diferences between the different
designed shutter of an OM-4 and an OM2000, third my impression is that
OM´s are very good designed and produce only minimal vibrations, an
Leica M3, I tried out, produced an significant shutter shock, an OM-1
not (an M6 was better than the M3, but not better as an OM-1, so the M3
might have been defect).

> Were the apertures the same? - Gary's tests show the 200/4 is better at
> f/5.6 to 16 than at f/22-32

The tripod pictures were bad at all apertures, not the performance you
would expect from an Zuiko, the pictures taken with wide open aperture
might be a little bit better (faster speed?).


Regards

Richard


< 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 >



--- End Message ---
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz