It's hard to believe that someone thinks the OM cameras are so "perfect"
there's no room for improvement. Shall I suggest a few?
1. Autofocus. No argument -- the lack of autofocus killed the OM line.
2. Integral motor and motor battery. The OM cameras lose their svelteness when
the motor and battery pack are added.
3. Higher shutter speeds and faster flash sync.
4. SuperFP flash with continuously variable output, according to subject
distance and/or degree of fill-in desired.
The OM cameras are "perfect" in a limited sense, as they represent a brilliant
combination of compactness and usable features that no one has ever matched in
a 35mm SLR. But in that respect, the Rolleiflex, Minox, SX-70, and even the
Brownie are "perfect" cameras. Within the range of what they do, they do it
brilliantly.
Methyl alcohol, sometimes called wood alcohol, is the simplest alcohol. It's
poisonous; drinking enough of it will literally blind you.
Ethyl alcohol, the kind you drink, is the second-simplest alcohol. Adding
methyl alcohol to ethyl alcohol "denatures" it (ie, destroys its "natural"
state), making it undrinkable (unless you're willing to get sick or go blind).
This mixture is called denatured alcohol or methylated spirits.
Anybody want to know the origin of the word "alcohol"? It's weird and strange.
One of the best ways to remove grease is with a microfiber cloth. I was never
able to get all the grease off my 16/3.5 -- even using Freon -- until I wiped
it with one of these cloths. The fibers are so fine and tightly woven that the
surface tension between them and the grease is sufficient to lift the grease.
Any photo shop should carry them. Similar cloths are sold in record stores to
clean CDs.
As far as I can tell, the rear nodal point, regardless of whether it is in
front of the lens, behind the lens, or within the lens, is the point at which
the light rays that strike the film appear to emanate from. Therefore, you
cannot change the angle at which the light rays strike the film without
changing the angle of view. I see what Jim Brokaw is driving at, but I'd like
to hear from an experienced lens designer who can give a definitive answer.
By the way, Jason Schneider told me he doesn't buy Olympus's explanation,
either. He also said he really doubts that Olympus will produce an
interchangeable-lens digital SLR with a full-frame sensor. To answer another
writer: the advantage of a full-frame sensor -- besides allowing the use of
existing lenses -- is that, for a given number of pixels, the larger sensor has
larger pixels, making it more light-sensitive.
< 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 >
|