My, what a firestorm over a *camera*. Here are some responses to valid
criticisms.
(1) SHUTTER SPEED DIAL OBSCURED.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> The latter is true, but any experienced OM user can determine which shutter
> speed any OM body (except the 2000 :-) is set to or what aperture any Zuiko
> is set to wearing a blindfold.
Yes, I do it by touch. The worst is the Tokina lens which
has clickstops every 1/2, 1 or 2 stops depending. A good argument
for sticking to Zuikos.
> This shutter speed ring / aperture ring design is now commonly accepted (at
> least by us) but when the OM-1 was introduced it was flamed by the
> Members-Of-The-Shutter-Speed-Dial-On-Top-Church.
It is also said that you can't operate the ring with a motor attached,
but that isn't true. You can use the middle fingers of each hand to
lever it. When the fingers are equally high, it's at 1/30.
Frank van Lindert wrote:
> This makes sense, and it is the only of your long list of problems
> which I can agree with. But you should have seen this immediately in
> the camera shop: it is the first thing to see when you hold the camera
> and take a few shots with it. I have got used to it.
Oddly enough, I did not. I put it down to "OM-hands", knowing what
the speed is just from touch. And I *have* got used to it. Let's
hope I don't head-butt my subjects reading the values when the
camera's on a tripod, as it usually is. Would you mount
a camera on a tripod in the shop?
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> True -- IF you hold the camera perfectly vertical. You only need to tip
> it very slightly to see the speeds.
Do that with the camera on a tripod without also walking in front
of it and stooping - possibly stepping on it if working in macro.
At the risk of attracting more flames, a AUD $4000 camera (new
price for 4Ti here) should have both speed and aperture in
the viewfinder and on the top plate. And yes, someone correctly
pointed out it never will because of the OM mount. Perhaps Oly
have tumbled to this. (It could be done with a CPU lens.)
(2). MANUAL MODE EXPOSURE NUMBER LINE BACK-TO-FRONT:
Frank van Lindert wrote:
> It is completely in agreement with the mathematical convention. These
> numbers are denominators of fractions, so the largest number (the
> longest exposure) is on the righthand side.
>
> You must be a mathematical nitwit, to say this!
No, in manual mode the line goes from +3 stops (at left) to -3 stops
(at right). No fractions involved. And no, I am not a mathematical
nitwit and in fact have a major in the subject.
Frank van Lindert wrote:
> And when shooting vertically you hold the camera in a way you can't do
> any good focusing with it, without enforcing a carpal tunnel
> syndrome...
I believe photographers split 80%/200ver this. My OM-1
manual shows both styles. Anyway, my handheld verticals are
as sharp through a loupe as my handheld horizontals.
Lucky me, I'm also right-handed and right-eyed. Some left-handed
people have to hold cameras upside down. I suspect the rise of
built-in motor drives has a lot to do with fairness to lefties.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Many Jews and Arabs (not to mention some Japanese) would disagree.
The Japanese write from left to right (occasionally top to bottom
e.g. in newspapers and magazines) just like us. The Semitic
languages write *maths* left-to-right also (I checked this
with an Arab mathematician). There is quite complex
machinery in computer software to make that happen while retaining
the right-to-left Hebrew and Arabic text.
Richard Schaetzl and Hans van Veluwen gave the answer (Richard's words):
> It has nothing to do with mathematics, but with the direction aperture
> and shutter rings are turned.
Never thought of that. The top or the bottom?? Must be real useful on
those cameras which lack either ring! A classic case of an inappropriate
user interface metaphor.
(ABOUT THE COMPENSATION DIAL)
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> (The reason for this arrangement is that exposure compensation actually
> changes the film speed, by moving the speed-setting mechanism. The film
> speeds are also "backwards," so correcting the latter would also fix the
> former.)
Yes, I figured out how it worked too. You shouldn't have to. Some
people couldn't, and they should be allowed to use cameras too.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> When you do a
> brief comparison between the compensation dials of the OM-2 and the OM-4,
> you might think they have changed the direction. But this is not the case.
> On both cameras you turn the dial clockwise -away from you- to get a
> negative compensation.
Yes, you're right. OTOH, I've had the OM-2N 9 years and still not
got used to this.
(4). THE LCD BAR GRAPH SHOULD BE A SWING NEEDLE.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Ugh. Analog good. Digital bad. Ugh.
Yes, for sure. I won't risk lawsuits by quoting examples, but
look in comp.risks and try to find a copy of the recent British TV
series "Blackbox". Digital watch displays aren't seen much any more,
are they?
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> But it is more precise and allows multi spot metering, and that's what the
> OM-3/4 are all about. The only circumstance where I prefer the OM-1 or OM-2
> needle, is when I'm taking shots of a computer screen or TV. Just point your
> OM-4 (if you haven't ditched it yet :-) to a TV, and you know why...
Yes, I tried that already. The manual also gives the example of
fluorescent lighting. Presumably this was motivated by user complaints
or even warranty returns.
It isn't more precise, though. Its resolution is 1/3 stop only,
and precision in the OM-system is limited by mechanical play
in the stop-down lever.
BTW, there exist "debounce" techniques in software which
can fix the hunting. Maybe N*k*ns do this, they don't seem
to hunt as much.
Frank van Lindert wrote:
> This makes clear that you didn't do your homework before buying the
> camera, but only after you had got it. If this is so essential for
> you, you simply shouldn't have bought it.
Did I say it was essential? Where would one buy a camera with
a swing needle these days? I was well aware of what the
viewfinder display looked like.
Ken Norton wrote:
> Needle vs LCD display. Are you serious? Isn't 1/3 stop accuracy good
> enough for you? If you are bouncing around trying to get a shot from an
> airplane/helocoptor/boat/horseback the last thing you want is a mechanical
> meter jouncing 4 stops each direction. Sorry, but this gripe is really weak.
Yes, I had not thought of that problem. Quite right, solid state is
more reliable. (And yes, my OM-1 has suffered from a jammed needle.)
Just make the quanta are small enough that they don't annoy the user.
The human visual system is set up to detect movement, which is
distracting when it is actually meaningless.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> By the way, the bar graph is digital, not analog. I've been arguing this
> with Burt Keppler for years, but he just doesn't understand.
I'm with Burt. It is discrete but analogue.
(4). LACK OF SPOT METERING MODE.
Yes, there are (appropriately) two 4's.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> This second diamond that was distracting you, is exacly what you were asking
> for: real time spot metering in both modes. The fxed diamond is the EV value
> you've just measured and stored, the moving diamond is a real time spot
> metering that moves with every subject you point the 2 enter to...
Yes, but it doesn't appear until there's already one locked in as AE.
I agree the inexperienced would find it useful for gauging contrast
ranges, and the experienced for confirming their guess.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> One reason for switching to manual is to select a fixed exposure for a
> series of shots of the same subject. (If you were going to shoot
> different objects, you'd probably stay in automatic.) The fraction of a
> second it takes to tap the Spot button represents "zilch" in terms of
> the time it takes to set the exposure manually.
And how many shots will be lost because I forget to tap it before
each and every exposure? FWIW I shoot in manual 900f the time.
And William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Wow -- YOU'RE distracted by the second diamond, so let's REMOVE
> multi-spot metering, making the OM-4 like every other spot-metering
> camera. Isn't it nice to know that, because YOU don't like a feature, no
> one else should be allowed to have it?
I have no problem with it being there - I just want to turn it OFF.
I thought I made it clear my evaluation was subjective. Anyway,
the market has judged multi-spot and not awarded the OM cameras
top spot.
And William Sommerwerck wrote:
> In spot mode, there is a prominent SPOT annuciator in the viewfinder.
It's wrong way around. When the camera unilaterally drops out of
SPOT mode, it disappears. The human senses are not well set up
to detect this; we're much more likely to notice something *appear*.
(5). TWO MINUTE TIMEOUT.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> If you're in manual, the
> _exposure_ doesn't change (because it was set manually).
Exposure isn't the only setting I've made - SPOT, HIGHLIGHT and
SHADOW. In fairness, 2 minutes is much longer than many other
cameras. Apparently tripods are no longer in common use, at
least in the 35mm world.
> If you memorized the exposure in auto, the memory LED blinks, and you
> need only touch the shutter button to restore the previous display.
As has been pointed out, it's easy to fire the shutter doing that.
Anyone tried this with a cable release? I have - and failed to
make it work. At least the wonderbricks have a separate electric
cable.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> Two minutes gives you plenty of time...
Not for landscape. It isn't up to the camera maker to decide
how long I should wait for the light. I might meter on aperture
priority auto (to get that nice OTF accuracy) and wait for
a cloud to move a little to highlight some feature. I might
be in auto for TTL flash, waiting for an insect to move.
> If you're afraid you're running out of time, just move the mode switch from
> Auto to Manual and back (or vice versa if you were working Manual). This is
> an alternative way to turn on the meter, or to reset the 120 period. Its my
> preferred method to turn on the meter; I'm always a bit concerned I press
> the shutter release button a bit too enthousiastic...:-)
That cancels SPOT/HILIGHT/SHADOW, but is an excellent dodge for
centre-weighted manual. This particular problem seems
to be shared by *every* 35mm camera now on the market.
> Anyway I think it's
> much better than forgetting to turn off the switch and running out of
> batteries in just one night.
Another thing those in the Church of Nikon say is wrong about older
Olympus cameras. It's never happened to me.
(6). TURNING OFF THE BEEPER.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> But I do agree with you that the three way switch that combines two totally
> unrelated functionalities (sound on/off and self timer) isn't likely to be
> award winning in any User Interface Design Contest :-)
I was just wondering how many people, sans books, never found it
at all.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Is there something _wrong_ with reading the manual all the way through?
Yes!! For a start, the majority of cameras bought used don't have one.
Do you read the manual every time you borrow a car? BTW, I *did* read
the camera manual through. I would be one in a hundred.
> (I write manuals for a living, and I expect the reader to eventually
> work through the manual.)
Many studies show they do not. Let me guess - you write software
manuals?
> A beep is an additional confirmation that what you wanted to happen (or
> something that you didn't expect to happen) has really happened. For
> example, the beep when you remove the lens is a reminder that a
> memorized exposure has been lost.
Say you. Methinks it sounds good in the shop and is a marketing
gimmick. I usually notice when I've dismounted the lens. There's
a huge gaping hole and a shiny mirror.
> I find the beeping unnecessary. But since you can shut the beeper off,
> what difference does it make?
None to me; I was evaluating the camera as a design. Unless
the beeper fails and lowers the resale value. Or I am trying
to quietly use the self-timer.
(7). HIGHLIGHT AND SHADOW BUTTONS.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> These buttons provide a fast way to compensate with a fixed setting. Agreed,
> it would be nice if you could set the exposure compensation factor
> associated with these buttons.
The other good thing about them is that, unlike exposure compensation,
they are cancelled after each exposure.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The nice thing about the buttons is they eliminate the need to fiddle
> with the compensation dial -- which is still available, if you want it.
> Sorry to upset you, but I use the highlight button quite often. (The
> shadow button is more problematical, since the relationship between
> correct exposure and the shadow density is not "fixed" (more or less)
> the way it is with highlights.)
I agree with this completely. I wonder, though, if the added convenience
could tempt the lazy (that includes me) to produce lots of pictures
with higlights/shadows set to a tone instead of something else in
the frame.
I won't give the buttons another thought until they mess up my day by
(say) rain getting in there.
(8). TTL SOCKET IN WRONG PLACE.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> 35mm cameras are usually held with the left hand cradling the lens --
> not grasping the body. Although you might have a valid reason for
> holding the camera this way, it is not the way most people hold it.
Hand-holding, my index finger locates where the TTL socket is while
the middle fingers work the shutter and aperture rings. It's not
far from there to help the thumb work the compensation dial. My
Mum wanted me to be a pianist, you see.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> As been pointed out by another list member, use the small hook attached to
> the cord to hook it into the strap eyelet.
Thanks, I've been wondering for years what that thing was for.
(9). AFRAID OF MEMO MODE.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> Accidentally bumping this switch is not enough to turn it on. You must use
> some force and really turn it anti-clockwise, to activate it. It has never
> happened to me, anyway.
Good, my fear is gone.
(10). BATTERIES TO BE REMOVED AFTER SHOOTING.
Frank van Lindert wrote:
> You deliberately misquote (another sign of moaning by the querulous).
> The manual says to remove the batteries before putting the camera away
> 'if you are not likely to use the camera for a long period of time'.
It actually says "If you are not likely to use the camera for
a long period of time, remove the batteries before putting it
away." That could mean anything, but personally I put the camera
away after every session (i.e. at the end of the shooting day.)
Could it possibly be that that they knew about the drain bug
so much discussed here recently and the lawyers dreamed up
this vague sentence? My printing of the manual is 11/85 and
the quote is from p14 book A. The Dutch book may be different.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> Well, in the last period you were able to read Everything You Would Want To
> Know About Battery Drain But Were Afraid To Ask For (including several
> things you DIDN'T want to know :-). You wrote it had the new 4Ti board
> installed.
I disbelieve this, after running the tests in a recent posting, and
will be removing the batteries. Unfortunately, I read that posting
after I bought the camera. Since the dealer is reputable, and "new
circuit" will mean just that, there must be a supply of OM-4 circuits
here.
(11). DIOPTRIC ADJUSTMENT.
Hans van Veluwen wrote:
> Never happend to me. Again, you must use quite some force to pull it
> allowing it to turn. But maybe there's something worn in your specimen.
Possibly, it's a real pig.
> Next time don't wear contacts before adjusting ;-)
They work with other brands of cameras. Since I have astigmatism
the diopter adjustment doesn't do much for me. Actually, many
people have this vision defect and the instructions warn them
they must use their glasses. Unlike the OM-1, I can't see the
viewfinder well with glasses. This defect of OM-4's has been well
publicised by Michael Covington.
Obviously, the knob should be marked so I can walk up to it
and dial "0" if I have the contacts in or "+2" otherwise. Then
anyone, knowing their script, could pick up the camera and
use it. Binoculars work like this. I would think this would be rather
more convenient in a professional environment where many people use
the one body.
===========
I won't answer the flames, other than to note that I did a bad
thing and used irony in my post: "Just as well the shop has a
return policy". Not a good idea, since it is rarely understood
outside the British English countries. (I too have stood in the
queues and wondered who gets the not-so-new "new" product next.)
I expected the headline of my article would make it clear the
post was not entirely serious, and that I had put some thought
into this purchase. Actually, I have wanted the camera for at
least ten years. I do not agree that the post was offensive - for
a start, there are probably quite a few OM-1 and OM-2{,N,SP}
owners out there who now have a warm feeling that they're not
missing out on anything.
Someone else accused me of "knowing nothing". I'm not
sure what there is to know. The very best person to evaluate
an interface is a person who has not used it before. After
a short time the evil things become old friends, even to
the designer.
Assuming the camera is serviceable, it is still worth keeping
because it has exposure compensation for ISO 25, TTL flash
and a spot meter, all of which I need. The only alternative
was a 2-SP, which was my first choice. In several months of
looking, I could not find a single working body for sale.
Unfortunately, the OM-4 may have to go back under warranty -
the motor won't mate securely (warped base plate?) and the
much-maligned highlight button has a bad contact. Also,
if the test recently posted here is correct it does *not*
have a 4Ti circuit.
I do need the body fairly soon because Old Faithful (OM-1,
bought used 1985) soon will need an unobtainable mercury and
New Faithful (OM-2N, bought used 1989) new foam. This
one will be known as The Tricorder and when all three are
working I'll be able to carry the 3 kinds of film I like
to swap between. I paid not much more for it than mint OM-1's
are going for and thought it unwise to let someone else
snaffle it. It is holidays here and many buyers are out
of town.
< 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 >
|