J. Williams wrote:
>
> Which screens are best for Astrophotography and macro-photography (in the
> 1:2 to 1:1 range)?
Try screens 1-8 and 1-11, they are very good for extreme tele and macro,
I tried 1:1 macro and a 400mm Novoflex.
>
> I like the 1-10 grid screen for keeping the horizon level; how do third
> party screens compare?
Depends on the screen.
> I am not familiar with the 2-X screen series; what are they and how have
> they improved?
They are brighter or better, they show a better contrast due to a more
even mini microproprism structur. Under normal conditions it´s easier to
focus because the focus will "snap in". For macro (1:1 slide copy) the
specialized screens are better.
>
> Freezing or refrigerating film. Which is recommended? Does it matter if
> it's pro film or non-pro film?
Freezing will keep the film longer "fresh" than just puting it into the
fridge. "Pro-film" should be stored permanent into the fridge. High
speed film and infrared will not benefit much from it. For more info to
specific film typs ask the film manufactor.
>
> What do expiration dates on film really mean (both pro and non-pro film)?
> What happens after the date?
Don´t open the can after film has expired! The blast will rip your hands
apart! ;-)
>
> What's the difference between UV and Haze and Skylight filters (Color and
> B&W)?
Look at them. The UV and Hace filter should be colorless clear, the
Skylight will slightly red-brownish.
>
> How can one employ fill-in flash with either the T-32 or F280 flash? Or
> is there a third party solution (OTF and TTL preferred)?
There was recently a discusion on the mailinglist about this, you will
find it in the List archives.
> I read about a solution for the OM-1 battery problem; what is the fix?
> Wein batteries or is there a suitable part?
There is a Olympus FAQ at:
http://www.astro.wellesley.edu/lhawkins/photo/photo.shtml
>
> I have extension tubes that will allow my 50mm f1.8 to go to 1:1. How
> sharp can I expect this set-up to be in the 1:2 to 1:1 range?
Not to sharp, try it out.
>
> I was considering the 90mm f2 macro for close-ups (mostly flowers). Is
> this suitable for making copy slides? How about on a copy stand? Or
> should I use the 50mm f1.8 with tubes?
The pictures with the 50mm will be bad. There are lensless adapter for
macro lenses which holds the slide in front of the lens to make copys
from it.
>
> I looked back in the review of the 90mm macro in Modern Photography
> (8/87) and it appears to be decent but reviews of the Tokina 90mm f2.5
> macro (MP 6/89) seem to be much better. Mostly excellent ratings versus
> good ratings at the various apertures. Any opinions? Did they change the
> test method? Has Olympus changed the design of the 90mm lens since the
> review?
Funny test, I´ve posted recently a test which showed, that the 90mm
Zuiko is one of the best macro lenses (next to Zeiss, Leica) man can
buy. The test showed also, that Tokina, Tamron ans Vivitar is just
second rank.
Design change? No
>
> What is the least expensive, best (sharpest) method for making slide
> copies?
Best: Buy the 80mm Macro Zuiko.
Cheapest: Give it to a cheap lab.
>
> The FAQ states: "A snazzy, if inaccurate, colour 'Brochure' of Zuiko
> lenses" Why is it inaccurate?
One statement about one 35mm 2,0 is not correct.
Richard
P.S. There are FAQ and archives you might try to read first
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|