>> My theory - since the ring flash will potentially produce a ring of
>>light, it's not a single point source anymore. It may be the fact that a
>>linear polarizer can handle the reflection from one angle, but it would
>>have to handle it from 360 degrees, ergo, a circular polarizer.
>
>I think you misunderstand what a circular polarizer is and how it works.
>It is two layers. The first is simply a linear polarizer, which does all
>the work of glare reduction just as with a single layer, linear polarizer.
>
>The second layer changes the light polarized in one direction from the
>first layer into randomly polarized light so that light meters and AF
>systems sensitive to the polarization of the light they receive aren't
>made inaccurate by using a polarizer.
>
>They effect on reflections from different directions will be the same
>with either kind of polarizer.
>
>Moose
Well Moose, it was a grand theory while it lasted. So we are back to the
idea that possibly the 2s / 3(TI) / 4(TI) were in the design stages when the
T-10 was introduced and some smart fellow in the back room pointed out that
a linear filter in front of the proposed new cameras would be problematic.
Did the T-10 polarizer filter come out at the same time as the flash or was
it introduced later, and that timing came closer to the introduction of the
later model bodies?
Am I correct in assuming that if I set the camera / flash to TTL auto that a
linear mechanism would be a moot point? Maybe I can revisit that kludge I
was thinking about for my Lester Dine ring flash since I did find a source
for a sheet of linear polarizer.
The truth is out there - but I have no idea where.
Jay
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|