Dusty wrote:
> Kewl, you wouldn't happen to have an extra OM to E1 adapter?
I think I could scare an extra up. Sure is handy having one
permanently mounted to my 100/2.8.
> I guess that also means more batteries are needed in the
> field.
I thought the 5D lasted for 3000 images and 200 hours of
continous runtime on a single battery? At least they're
relatively inexpensive.
> Well, I do know if I set the E-1 aperture to as high as
> possible, the dust is visible, but not nearly as in focus as
> it is on the 5D. One more advantage the E1 sensor size has,
> as the mirror box dimensions for the FF 5D are probably tight,
> while the E-1 has more room to add distance, which means
> an even higher F-stop is needed to make the dust an issue.
Your example of F32 is still only part of the issue. As far as
dust visibility, F32 at 250mm is probably similar to F16 at 50mm
(give or take). I'm making an assumption here, of course. I've
shot my 200/4 at whatever the maximum is (F22 I think) and the
factory installed dirt-clod is no more visible than other lenses
with tiny apertures.
I'm trying to understand what you are refering to about the E-1
sensor size advantage. I've been thinking that the smaller
sensor would be at a marked disadvantage because of the greater
magnifications required for equal size prints. Also, there is
the nasty issue of DoF with the smaller formats where you are
more likely to see clumps and wads on your filters and lenses.
Just maybe the geniuses in Olympus Engineering stumbled upon
something and discovered an optimal sensor-size for dust
management. You never know... Digital camera systems are just
that--Systems! It used to be that the lens, camera and film
were three distinct entities that were pretty much
interchangeable and independent of each other. Now, the optics
and sensor are so much married to each other. Even something as
simple as the discovery that the microlenses on the sensors
caused problems with some lens designs.
As "evidence" of the above statement, I reference the distinct
difference in appearance of the bokeh in images taken with my
100/2.8. On film, the penumbra of the OOF highlights is a smooth
fade out. With the 100/2.8, the OOF highlights have a marked
edge to the penumbra. Instead of film's "fuzzball" the OOF
highlight looks like a balloon. Same lens, same settings, same
type of image.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|