> Like I would memorize that - nope.
No memorizing, just "knowing". Some combinations just don't fly and
you just get it after a while. The key is that a longer shutter speed
is usually better than a shorter shutter speed. The 200/4 is a lens
which is almost pure disaster on the OM bodies, until you get below
1/15th of a second. Long exposures have the vibration as a tiny
portion of the overall exposure and will nullify the vibration. From
1/30 to 1/200, the 200/4 is a non-starter. But faster than 1/200 or
slower than 1/30, and it comes into its own. For those of us who use
flash a lot (portraits, event, etc.), it's a non-issue too.
Other lenses are also prone to vibration. Of all lenses, my 24/2.8
seems to be more sensitive than most. Still haven't figured out why
that should be a problem except that both of my 24/2.8 lenses had
developed an internal looseness which may be part of the issue.
The 100/2.8 is almost totally free of any issues at any shutter speed
and aperture. Throw a flash into the mix and the images from it and
the 100/2 are almost brutal in their sharpness.
> Doesn't seem quite true to me. The mirror/aperture pre-fire with self-timer
> of the OM-4(T(i)) series, while annoyingly slow, works perfectly. The lesser
> OMPC and OM2000 bodies have that, too.
The self-timer mode being used in the OM-2 and OM-4 series of cameras
does pre-fire the aperture so that helps, except you have to
anticipate your photos 10 seconds ahead. The OM-2S is unique in that
during a NORMAL auto/program exposure, the aperture is actuated, then
a brief exposure is calculated then the shutter opens. The extra delay
from this is just enough to get the aperture shock to settle down
before the actual picture is taken. As discussed many times before,
the sequence of events with the OM-2S makes for a wonderful sound when
you take the picture.
> Nikon, of course, although already with a less vibration prone aperture
> mechanism, had a mechanical combination mirror/aperture mechanism on at
> least the F2.
The Nikon method was definitely superior, but my understanding is that
there were two specific issues involved:
1. Nikon had a patent on design and were inforcing an expensive
licensing program.
2. Olympus had a cross-license on the design they used because of
their involvement with the lens designs for medium-format cameras. You
will see that the Olympus method is utilized on several different
brands of medium-format cameras. The difference, though, is that in
the medium-format cameras, the shutter latency is so massive that the
issues with the vibration from the aperture is nullified. Also, the
sheer mass of the cameras and lenses addressed a lot of that too and
the majority of cameras were used in a flash-lit environment.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|