Must be one of those profound "truths" that emanate from the mouths of
camera sales persons.
Yes, the semi-silvered mirror of the OM-2sp and later and the OM/PC/40
act somewhat as a polarizer and tends to undo the work of the linear
polarizer and thus whacks up the exposure calculation. That's why they
need a circular polarizer to compute exposure manually. But as Charlie
(?) already noted, when the mirror is up, the semi-silvered surface is
out of the way and automatic exposure calculation proceeds correctly
without regard to the type of polarization.
Some autofocus mechanisms also adversely affect linear polarized light
but not all. My Minolta A1 also works correctly with an OM 49mm linear
polarizer. I'm sure the 5D requires a circular since that's the only
type that Canon sells.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Jon Mitchell wrote:
>
>>Hi Everyone,
>>
>>A very quick, On Topic question for you. I can't remember the exact
>>details of which, when, and why, but I remember something about not
>>being able to use a Linear Polariser on some OM cameras (OM-3 & 4 ?) due
>>to the spot metering ? My father has an OM-1(MD) and was told that he
>>needed a circular polariser because "a linear polariser will throw off
>>the meter in ALL SLR's". Sounds like BS to me. Anyone care to comment
>>on which (OM) cameras need a specific Polariser, which are not fussy,
>>and why ?
>>
>
> Tis indeed BS. Circular polarizers, if they existed at all, certainly
> weren't sold to fit cameras when the OM-1 was designed. The Oly
> polarizers sold for use with the OM-1 were all linear and worked correctly.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|