At 12:27 PM 2/20/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Although I've owned a pair of OM-1's since 1972 (and still have them),
>consider me a newbie. I simply bought a few primes and used the cams
>and have never learned much OM lore.
>
>WIth this background, would a 4T be a significant step up for me? I'm
>a bit puzzled as to why the resolution marks in Gary's charts always
>favour the 4T over the 1. Is this related only to very careful tripod
>work and inherent OM-1 internal vibration? Would I see this difference
>in the 'real' (i.e. handheld) world?
>
>Gene
The OM-1 was my only Olympus camera for many years and I was very skeptical
that I could get more from a camera than the OM-1 offered, and I was
shooting primarily slides. I learned all sorts of tricks to get accurate
exposures with that camera.
My first departure down the slippery slope of OMification was an OM-2S. I
found that the meter was just a bit smarter and more accurate. I'm not
talking about the spot metering, just the CW averaging meter -- apples to
apples with the OM-1.
But I don't think you need an OM-4T if you're not planning to use the
meter. But if you do, you'll appreciate it.
One other feature is that the OM-4T can take the brighter 2-series or
Beattie screens without adjustment of any kind or alteration of the screen
that is required to make it fit the OM-1. The brighter screens have added
a great deal of pleasure to shooting for me.
If you are not using any sort of dioptric adjustment with your OM-1s, or if
you use glasses/contacts, you may not consider the built-in diopter to be a
significant feature, but I like having that built in to the camera.
I think by and large that the permanent hotshoe is a good feature as
compared to the detachable one on the OM-1.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|