Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: macro posts please

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: macro posts please
From: Frank van Lindert <lindertv@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:38:03 +0100
I agree, Rand

Of course TTL is good for macrophotography (and photomicrography!)
But you will not often need spot-measurement, certainly not in
bigger-than-lifesize macro. 
I think this is the main reason that in laboratories you will find
more OM2N's than OM4(T)'s mounted on microscopes or VST/bellows
set-ups. 
Another important reason is the better viewfinder. Especially in the
low light situations often met in macro/micro every extra ray of light
reaching the screen instead of passing _through_ the mirror counts.

I also think that the OM2N's will finally outlive the OM4's. LCD's
don't last that long, so we are told...  

Frank van Lindert
Utrecht NL.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:00:53 -0500, "Rand E." <rtomcala@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  Apparently those of you younger folk on the list fail to remember that
>the TTL feature was introduced with the OM2 and OM2n models and they, in
>all probability, remains the mainstay (due to numbers) to this day. 
>Remember that it will most likely be the 2 and the 2n that will remain
>with the factory produced (not upgraded wi 4T ckt bd) after the majority
>of the OM2s's and OM4's succumb to their frailties.
>  Yes, I also own an OM4 and love it's features.  But if I go on a shoot
>where I "must" get the shots I feel better if I have my OM2 or OM2n
>along.
>  Oh yes, one of the major reasons that went with Olympus OM in the
>early '70's was TTL with macro photography on the OM2......it still
>hasn't changed.
>  I realize that the glamour is with the 2s, the 4's, but you also have
>to remember the true work horse of the line is, and will most likely
>remain, the OM2 and the OM2n (along with the non TTL OM1 and OM1n).
>IMHO,
>Rand E.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Wm Biesele wrote:
>> 
>> Phillip Franklin wrote
>> ==============================================
>> 
>> Bill,
>> 
>> For macro work you definitely want either the 2s or 4 or 4T(Ti) (or I guess 
>> the 3Ti if you
>> have the extra bucks). Trying to figure flash exposures is too difficult and 
>> cumbersome
>> without TTL OTF.  I suppose it's why OM introduced it back when they did.  
>> TTL OTF is a
>> godsend for macro work. Either the T10 or T8 or T28 or even the T20 or t32 
>> is the way to go.
>> Of course shooting macro with available or tungsten light can be done with 
>> about any of the
>> bodies.  However if you are seriously into macro plan on using TTL OTF.  I 
>> think that is
>> where the OM system has little or no competition. I use various 1 series 
>> macro screens. I
>> think I've got all of them and I like the 1-12 best.
>> 
>> =====================================================
>> 
>> I think I'll try the 2s. Macro flash computation is not that tough (it's in 
>> the calculator).
>> With flower shots the macro OTF can try to light up the background and over 
>> expose the flower.
>> Getting closer helps but DOF gets worse. I've gotten some unusual results 
>> using a grey card
>> as a background, some flowers transmit noticeable amounts of light which 
>> colors the grey card.
>> 
>> I appreciate the advice on the 1-12, a 1-11 was in the plan and a now a 1-12 
>> is too.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Bill B.
>

< 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 >


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