Hi Moose and all,
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>I think I qualify to comment, as a early adopter of a pre-MD OM-1 and
>lifetime OM user since. As a user of a Nikon Ftn, I was wowed by the
>size, weight, elegance and innovative mechanical design of the OM-1. As
>soon as I could swing it, I gave up the Ftn and bought an OM-1.
I own (and ocassionally use) a Nik*n F, F2 and F3, besides being an OM fan,
and also own and/or tried several brands of cameras, so I may qualify also
;-)
>The major failings in the camera itself relate to vibration control. The
>design of the lens aperture and stop-down mechanism is inherently
>flawed.
I agree about the vibration control, but I'm not sure if the stop-down
mechanism is to blame. Comparative lightness may be the culprit, me
thinks...
>Oly worked around that starting with the OM-2sp, then the 4
>series, OMPC and OM2000,
Well, the OM4 predates the 2SP...
>but all used the self timer, which isn't
>variable length, which is a slow and awkward way to work for many
>applications.
In the "OM of my dreams", the MLU would be of the push-button kind, in order
to fire both the mirror and diaphragm. Not sure if a cancelling mode should
be implemented also :-)
I sold my OM4 long ago, but IIRC, even when using the self-timer-MLU, the
vibration caused by the shutter travel itself could be an issue.
>OM lenses have the diaphragm held open by a spring in the lens. The
>camera has no idea what the actual movement needed for any stop is, so
>it simply slams the lens operating pin against the stop inside the lens
>in a circular motion.
I would agree, but after
John H's explanation in a recent thread, OM lenses work _internally_
much like other brands -- when the OM's
auto-diaphragm lever "pushes" the pin on the lens, internally it just
_releases_ a second lever that kept the diaphragm open, returning by its
own, different spring to the aperture value selected by the control ring.
>Because the camera body has to operate even very
>large diaphragm mechanisms, its action is quite strong.
I think the strength of auto-diaph. lever on the OM's is more related to its
direct connection to the mirror.
>Nikon F lenses are the reverse, with a spring in the lens holding the
>aperture closed against the internal stop set by the aperture ring.
Externally, most manufacturers operate this way.
>The
>camera operating lever just moves down and up, without a bang at the
>end. The bang, a smaller one because of the smaller mass of the parts
>involved, happens out in the lens, and is proportional to the operating
>force required by each lens.
If I understand you correctly,
you're telling that on the Nik*n the lever will just release the
pressure over the lens' pin,
letting it go as far as selected on the aperture ring... so the "bang" would
be on the lens, the body's lever would be uncoupled by then. Am I wrong?
>In the case of the F series, the sheer mass of the camera helps minimize
>vibration effects.
That's for sure.
>Then of course, the F series has a mechanical MLU AND
>aperture pre-stopdown mechanism.
If you're talking about the original, '59 "plain" F (not F2 etc) then it's
an really quirky one... but extremely effective! For those who don't know
it, it makes you lose one picture (or two if not careful enough): you set
the knob at the mirror-lock setting and shoot, then the mirror keeps up and
doesn't go down again, and the aperture lever will stay at the stopped-down
position. After taking the pic(s) with MLU you can put the knob to its
normal position -- if shutter wasn't cocked, mirror will go down; but if it
was, you'll have to make another dumb shot to recover the standard mode!
The nice thing about these "arguments" is that the encourage us to
experiment... I have taken several cameras from my collection and have
checked vibration when using MLU... all while listening to LOUD rock thru
headphones, in order not to be biased by camera noise ;-)
Please note that when I say "loud", "quiet" or "smooth" I am NOT talking
about sound, but about perceived mechanical vibration... this would be
difficult to express properly, even in Spanish! FWIW, I mention the lens
mounted on each camera -- always at 1/250 and minimum aperture. In no
particular order:
--Bessa-T + Ultron 28/1.9: surprisingly "loud" for a rangefinder, mostly due
to its lightweight body and double shutter design. Newer Bessas are said to
have a much quieter shutter, plus a heftier (magnesium) body -- boy, that's
another excuse to purchase the R3A ;-)
--OM1 + Zuiko 85/2: there's notable action, but I feel it kind of "smooth"
-- low frequency, I'd say. Pressing the DOF preview button on the lens seems
to improve thigs greatly. Without MLU, it looks "louder" and longer, but
even "smoother".
--C*ntax RTS2 + Tessar 45/2.8: no aperture pre-fire, MLU operation seems
"quieter" than the OM, but it could be because of the weight. It has a
two-stroke feel, though. Without MLU, is not rough (but way _noisy_, this
time acoustically!!) and feels like several-stroke action.
--Min*lta SRT-101 + Tamron 35-70/3.5: a tiny bit "quieter" than the OM. It
has an aperture pre-fire device (intended for DOF-preview) that improves
things, but not much. Without MLU is way "louder" than the OM.
--Can*n F1 + SSC 50/1.4: the MLU is indeed linked to the DOF-preview,
although (like the Min*lta and the Nik*n F2) there's still some movement of
the auto-aperture lever when shooting. It's _surprisingly_ "quiet", in the
sense of low vibration level... but seems also very "peaky", with a single
fast "clak!" followed by a long lasting "tinnnnnnnnnnnnnk". Without MLU it's
the "quieter" of all, but still peaky.
--Nik*n F2 + Nikkor-S 58(!)/1.4: nothing to do with the original F. MLU
implies aperture pre-fire, and is rather "smooth", with a very short action.
Without MLU it isn't too loud, but still "louder" than the Can*n F1. This
should be the heftier camera, with the heavy DP3 metering head (vs. the
waist level finder on my F)
--Nik*n F + Nikkor-S 50/2 (retrofocus!): the cumbersome MLU device seems to
really disengage the auto-diaphragm mechanism -- it's the SMOOOOOOOOTHEST of
it all, especially @ 1/250. OTOH, without MLU it becomes way "louder" than
the F2 (which sounds more "metallic")
>The other error, since corrected, but significant to me at the time, was
>the quality of the 50/1.8 kit lens. It was just so-so, and couldn't hold
>a candle to the 50/2 Nikkor I'd had before.
It was probably the "Nikk*r-H·C" version... an excellent performer, for
sure.
>No personal experience, but
>I believe at introduction, the Zuiko 50/1.4 was also inferior to the
>equivalent Nikkor, although not by as much.
Another fine lens, against a not-so-good Zuiko. However, I can see some
"character" on the early silvernose 50/1.4 that makes it nice, besides
strict comparision and technical quality.
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|