Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 200mm F4 / F5 vs. 65/200mm F4 (late and very long)

Subject: Re: [OM] 200mm F4 / F5 vs. 65/200mm F4 (late and very long)
From: Richard Schaetzl <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:58:12 +0200
I was a little bussy in the last days, so I couldn´t participate the list 
like I wanted.

Joel Wilcox wrote:

> I assume you mean mirror lockup with OM-1, as timer (i.e., "prefire"
> initiator) doesn't lock up mirror prior to shutter firing.

Yeah, I was searching for the word. In fact with the OM-1 it´s a mirror lock up
while the OM-4 prefires mirror and aperture.

Joel Wilcox wrote on an other occasion:

> I agree with your sentiments here.  I did however check the combination out
> at all shutter speeds.  There were no shake-free speeds.  1/2 sec seemed to
> have the most pronounced double-shake.

I wanted to ask you this, but you have already answerd it.

Joel Wilcox wrote also:

> In the tests I was doing, I routinely used the timers so that I could get
> closer to the laser-illuminated spot on the wall but have the camera about
> 2.5 meters away.  In addition, with the OM-1 I locked up the mirror.  The
> timer would of course have locked up the mirror on the OM-2S. Any
> differences between the OM-1 and OM-2S with 200/f4 mounted should have to
> do only with the shutter and aperture stopdown mechanism, although I tried
> to nullify the latter by going to full aperture and even taping down the
> DOF button.

So did I. 

> No one
> has been surprised, for instance, that Gary's tests of the 90/f2 or 50/1.2
> with OM-1 indicated that these lenses are excellent. Just want to remind
> everybody that these also were shot with an OM-1.

Joel Wilcox wrote then:

> The conservative hypothesis is that OM-1's with 200/f4 have inordinant
> vibration (and seem to need a little extra support for that reason).

I had the impression, that the 200mm had vibration problems with the OM-4 too.

> The *fear* is that an OM-1(x) with *any* lens is more prone to the effects
> of shutter vibration than other cameras.  

My experiance with the 180mm didn´t support this.

Chuck Norcutt schrieb:

> Excuse me if I missed it but I don't recall that there has
> been any data yet that would implicate the OM-1 with a lens other than
> the 200mm/f4.

I tested an 180mm against it, which had less vibration problems. Maybe the 
bigger mass (+50%) reduced vissible vibrations?
 
> I'll continue to use the OM-1 confidently with shorter lenses and handheld
> and use a good tripod, including lens support, wherever I can.

The way camera-lens is fixed to the tripod seems to be crucial.

John Hermanson schrieb:
> 
> The OM-1 through 4Ti are better damped than most cameras of those eras.
> Home test results should not cause people to think that now their cameras
> are chronically defective or poorly designed.

I just tested my personal setup, so the overall performance of an tripod-
head-camera-lens combination.

PCACala@xxxxxxx schrieb:
 
> The mass of the tripod has little effect on dampening the OM-1 shutter
> vibration.  

The other parts of the setup might be as equal important or the way they 
are conected together. An bad tripodhead might spoil the performance of the 
whole setup.

Here, the weak point mightbe also the tripod-camera connection. The lens is 
long 
and relativly heavy, combined with the relative weak camera tripod conection 
this might 
allow vibrations produced in camera and lens to be effective.
The 180mm might have diffrent (lower?) internal vibrations and the bigger mass 
might 
supress camera induced vibrations.

Tom Trottier wrote:
> 
> Too bad the mirror prefire did not also do an aperture prefire. Something for
> the OM-5 and OM-6.

Charles Loeven wrote:

> So then the really big improvement on the fictional OM5 would be aperture
> prefire.  ;-)

The selftimer on the OM-4(Ti) and OM-2SP prefires aperture and mirror already.

> Perhaps we could keep a spare OM1 with the lever cut off for

Uugh..

> when we want really sharp photo's.  Is that possible?

I´ll prefer the tape methode and please don´t forget, that I have seen
this strong effect only in combination with the 200mm lens and the
camera fixed with his own tripodthread.

Tom Trottier wrote also:

> It seems to me some vibration mode was excited. Perhaps adding some extra
> weight to the lens would interfere with this. Perhaps some lead sinkers
> attached with Velcro? Or even better, a bean bag with BBs that would
> absorg/diffuse vibration. It's easier to add than subtract.

I would fear for the tripod thread of the camera or the lensmount, when
adding substantial weight.

Using a second suporting tripod or placing lens and camera on an beanbag
(maybe covered by an lead pellets bag) will be less risky.


Gary Reese wrote:
> 
> Super work and very revealing insights by Richard and Joel!  Do I regret
> choosing a OM-1 for my lens tests?  You bet.  But we collectively have
> uncovered a real world limitation of the OM-1

Yes, but the OM-1 seems to be very poular with astro photogs, so someone 
should not expect vibrations problems with this camera.

On the other hand there is no aperture to move and the mass of of telescopes 
is bigger than the mass of an 200mm/4.0 and nobody would mount an OM-1 instead 
of the lens to the tripod.

Tom Trottier wrote further:

> In any case, the resolution
> of your projection lens is likely way below that of your camera lens unless 
> you
> really dish out the bucks.

I hope not, and for "dishing out the money" I´m willing to pay as much
for an projecting  lens as for an taking lens, because a chain is only
as strong as the weekest link. Choosen carefully this hasn´t to be to
expensive, because you will need just one lens to do the job.

Tom Trottier feared:
 
> Does this mean that the entire OM line does not have its shutter/mirror
> mechanisms well damped? 

Yes, all the OM stuff is of bad design and totaly outdated, so please send 
me your remaining OM stuff for enviromental friendly disposing ;-) 
(I know, it´s an old joke)

With ecologigical greetings

Richard




< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [OM] 200mm F4 / F5 vs. 65/200mm F4 (late and very long), Richard Schaetzl <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz