I'll be the last one to argue against the OM-1 on vibration with lenses
under 135mm but your test cases don't prove a point. The flesh of your
hands absorbs vibration and long shutter speeds hide it.
Chuck Norcutt
Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Of course the OM-1 is not useless! I can honestly say that, apart from
> high-magnification
> Macro work, I have never had issues with vibration on my OM-1s. I
> admit I mostly use it hand-held,
> but even in close-up photography (such as here, 1/60s with a 90mm
> lens, hand-held) I have honestly
> never seen blurring due to shutter vibration
>
> http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/343/b/0/Hidden_Emotions_atThe_Frontier_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
> Also, here hand-held with an OM-2n at 1/4s, absolutely no camera shake:
> http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/358/6/8/Mothership_Bar_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
> And finally, I think the highest-resolution 35mm photograph I have
> made yet was with
> the OM-1 and the 250mm f/2 (which, of course, absorbs vibration due to
> it's sheer weight).
>
> :-)
>
> On 31 Aug 2010, at 12:07 PM, Brian Swale wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why I was so convinced that the OM1 was so useless, but
>> now I
>> see that that is not necessarily so.
>>
>> Brian Swale.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
