Hi Oben,
From: "Oben Candemir" <dunya@xxxxxxxxxx> -- writ in part:
In my opinion the OM2N was and is THE camera body in the OM-system.
Criticisms of the need for battery power aside (I mean what modern AF
camera
would work without one??) it has all the things we love and need in the OM
series and nothing we dont. My reasons are:
1. The fixed flash shoe of the OM-3 / 4 bite into the brow/forehead and
can't be removed. The 2 on the other hand has no such problem with the shoe
on or off. I thought this may be just my anatomy but others also confirm my
experience.
Not this neanderthal. Sloping-back foreheads rule! One is possibly better
off removing the shoe 4 for other reasons, particularly if it not yet
broken. It is rarely helpful to use with a spirit level since the detachable
shoes are not reliably level. All in all, the detachable shoes are a nice
idea but horrible over the long haul IMO.
2. The exposure compensation dial on the OM4 easily gets turned with normal
camera handling and the +/- mark in the viewfinder is hard to see and
easily
overlooked leading to wrong exposures. The OM2N has a very nice indicator
as
well as the fact the dial can't be turned with normal handling.
Hello? I have never had this problem with the OM-4T exposure comp dial. I
had thought the OM-2(x) exposure comp placement was ideal until I was
shooting from brackets handheld with the OM-4T and wanted to keep the
composition exact. The OM-4T is extremely deft for this. Perhaps the dial
has been improved from the 4 to the 4T?
3. The OM4 eats batteries like there's no tomorrow. I can't keep up with
its
appetite and I have gotten sick of removing and replacing the batteries.
That's a bummer. My OM-4T is my best body for batteries.
4. The highlight and shadow controls are a complete waste of time. I can't
remember when I needed them nor the last time I used them.
Not if you live with snow (though I don't use them much and only the hilight
button when I do).
5. Spot metering? It is nice, but can be replicated by using your feet to
get closer and meter etc. or using a tele to meter a smaller area of the
scene.
Don't get me wrong; I own both, but since I got my OM2N, it made me realise
that Olympus lost the plot a little with the 3 and 4. Not to mention the
fact that they didn't really develop the ideas any further.
I have a OM-2N which is enjoyable in that it has the basic simple elegance
of the OM-1 with the nice additional features of auto mode. I got it I
suppose as an analog hedge against the prospect of failing LCDs. It also may
have a little more range with TTL flash, but I have almost given up using
TTL in situations where that range might be useful.
This is just an impression, but the averaging meter in the OM-2S/4(x) seems
to be a little more accurate than in the OM-2N. In fairness, I have not yet
had this body CLA'ed, so perhaps it can be improved.
The strongest reason I prefer the OM-2S or 4(x) to OM-2N is the ability to
use a 2 series screen. The 85-250/5 is a drag to use with a 1-series screen;
with an OM-2S/4(x) with 2-series screen it is one of my favorite and
most-used lenses.
I don't know what you mean by not developing the ideas of the OM-3/4
metering system further. It seems a complete system in and of itself.
Joel W.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< 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 >
|