Does that mean for most reliable focus to close down to f/4 and hold in
the DoF preview button since DoF indications will be unreliable anyhow?
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/4/2012 9:52 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Yes, per Rachel at Katzeye the increased brightness always comes at the
> cost of
> "focusing contrast." It is always a compromise. I had thought the 1-13
> and 2-13 enable reliable focus at f1.4 and was a bit surprised by
> Dawid's observation.
> Perhaps itis because I was comparing performance with the Z. 50/1.4?
> I could not find any experiments on this in the archives. Perhaps John
> would know if the 2-series have consistent trouble at f1.2.
> The stock Canyon OM 5DII screen seems to be about F4 for reliable focus
> (against mag LV) as far as I can tell. (no surprise)
> I recall some mention of one Nykon model that enabled one to flip
> focusing screens that were pre-installed. Changing OM's FS is
> not very fussy, but is still not something one wants to do while out
> and about. (I use sterile powderless surgical gloves which really
> makes it fast.)
>
> Clean Screen, Mike
>
> http://olympus.dementix.org/eSIF/om-sif/findergroup/focusingscreens.htm
>
>
>
>
> But I *want* to have my cake and eat it too! Everything else about the
> OM-3Ti represents having one's cake and eating it.
>
> Ironically - the 2-series screen comes closest to best all-rounder, as
> there really is only a *single* point of criticism, and that's the
> display of deeper DOF than what really will be recorded. Other than
> that, it's perfect perfect perfect - super contrasty, as bright as
> viewing with the naked eye (truly), no off-axis aberration (many other
> OM focus screens have heavy coma-like smearing of bright objects to
> the corners), and central focusing aids that are so precisely
> manufactured, they literally visually disappear when you're in focus,
> unlike many other split prisms that have distinct outlines, etc. It
> makes the scene look better and more vivid than it really is, and
> makes the lens performance look better than it is (not so good).
>
> With this conundrum in mind, I can appreciate the considerable effort
> the Olympus engineers must have applied to develop the 2-series
> screens. At least I have established on thing - the 2-series does show
> a DOF difference between f/2.8 and f/4. I thought it was as bad as
> only showing f/4 and down. I guess I'll take my chances with f/2.8
> accuracy.. maybe... or should I just use the Nikon F again?
>
> (just kidding)
>
> :-)
>
> I do get the point of what you are saying, Chuck. I do however want to
> minimise my fiddling *within* the 35mm realm - I already use different
> camera types (35mm, 6x7cm, 4x5in) for different purposes. I have
> sampled all three iconic 35mm cameras (Leica M3, Nikon F, Olympus OM)
> and I really don't want to be wondering whether I should switch
> between them too! An Olympus OM comes closes to ideal all-rounder.
>
> Dawid
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|