Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] RANT: Sample images taken with EP-1

Subject: Re: [OM] RANT: Sample images taken with EP-1
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:17:27 -0700
Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Iwert, I think we were all thinking of the introduction of the OM series, and 
> hoping Olympus would pull something of this magnitude off again. Something 
> really innovative, not just something pretty.
>
> I can't think of too many things they did wrong then...
>   

I think I qualify to comment, as a early adopter of a pre-MD OM-1 and 
lifetime OM user since. As a user of a Nikon Ftn, I was wowed by the 
size, weight, elegance  and innovative mechanical design of the OM-1. As 
soon as I could swing it, I gave up the Ftn and bought an OM-1.

A breakthrough camera, sure. Without fault, nah.

The major failings in the camera itself relate to vibration control. The 
design of the lens aperture and stop-down mechanism is inherently 
flawed. Oly worked around that starting with the OM-2sp, then the 4 
series, OMPC and OM2000, but all used the self timer, which isn't 
variable length, which is a slow and awkward way to work for many 
applications.

OM lenses have the diaphragm held open by a spring in the lens. The 
camera has no idea what the actual movement needed for any stop is, so 
it simply slams the lens operating pin against the stop inside the lens 
in a circular motion. Because the camera body has to operate even very 
large diaphragm mechanisms, its action is quite strong. This causes lots 
of motion and vibration. Gary's tests proved conclusively that the 
mirror lock-up is simply ineffective at controlling vibration - possibly 
why there isn't one on the OM-2(n).

Nikon F lenses are the reverse, with a spring in the lens holding the 
aperture closed against the internal stop set by the aperture ring. The 
camera operating lever just moves down and up, without a bang at the 
end. The bang, a smaller one because of the smaller mass of the parts 
involved, happens out in the lens, and is proportional to the operating 
force required by each lens. So small, light lenses have a small bang, 
big heavy ones a bigger one.

In the case of the F series, the sheer mass of the camera helps minimize 
vibration effects. Then of course, the F series has a mechanical MLU AND 
aperture pre-stopdown mechanism.

The other error, since corrected, but significant to me at the time, was 
the quality of the 50/1.8 kit lens. It was just so-so, and couldn't hold 
a candle to the 50/2 Nikkor I'd had before. No personal experience, but 
I believe at introduction, the Zuiko 50/1.4 was also inferior to the 
equivalent Nikkor, although not by as much. If I hadn't been blinded by 
the camera body and had tested the lens against the Nikkor, I might well 
have put off the switch. Oly sold a LOT of cameras with mediocre lenses 
back then. The Zuiko 35-70/3.6 solved my personal problem. Just the 
opposite of the 50mm primes; the Zuiko was way better than the 
contemporary 43-86 Nikkor.

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz