In a message dated 11/22/99 9:10:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dbulger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I've been considering the -4 as the main metering & shooting camera. This
> issue is whether I've got time to play with it enough prior to departure.
> I'm reluctant to shoot stuff with a body I haven't had in my hands (and
to
> my eye) for hours & hours. Granted, the meter's better & smarter than the
> one in the -2s, but I *know* the -2s meter very well.
I would go with what you are familiar with. But you want to learn the OM-4's
meter as soon as you can. You won't regret it.
> I've got to get the
> bodies (-1 & -4) into the shop & have meters recalibrated (Beattie
> screens), then burn up some film getting to know the -4 camera & meter
> better than I do now.
The OM-4 doesn't need a meter recalibration with a different screen. It uses
the submirror behind the main mirror to reflect light to the cell in the
mirror box floor. The OM-1 does meter off the screen, and will need to be
recalibrated.
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the -4 is going to produce less bounce from
> the shutter than the -2s? I use the self timer & a tripod on
_everything_.
> With aperture prefire & mirror lockup on both bodies, the only thing
> (other than the operator) to blame lack of sharpness on is the shutter.
> With the -2s's shutter (schwoop-whack-CLICK-Click-click) it _can't_ be
too
> stable. Sexy, yes, but not stable.
I have both a -2S and a -4, and the -4 does seem more stable. I assume it is
the extra linkage to support the aperture linkage for program mode.
>
> Hell, if my -1n had aperture prefire, I'd shoot with it and meter with the
> -4! I LOVE my OM-1n. This body is probably single-handedly responsible
> for my Zuikoholism. Regarding the listee trying to decide between a -1n
> and a ME Super, take THAT as an endorsement.
Paul Schings
< 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 >
|