Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I have some further information about shutter shudders. Some may recall my
>posting results of tests with laser pencil, 200/f4, and both OM-1 and
>OM-2S, with and without supplementary telephoto lens support.
As I recall that you saw shutter shudders when the 200mm/4 was attached to the
OM-1, but not with the OM-2S.
>I shot half a roll of Agfa RSX-50 with the OM-2S and OM-1 with and without
>telephoto lens support. Also with each camera some of the shots were in
>natural light and some were with flash. For all but one set of comparisons
>the subject was a striped orchid.
What was your setup this time? If I may summarize his setup, i.e. experimental
condition, they are:
Cameras: OM-2S and OM-1,
Lens: 200mm/4
Extension tubes,
Tripod: Bogen 3221 (a really heavy model, I think) with a pan head with quick
release (3030). with/without telephoto support
Photo Subject: striped orchid
What kind of extension tubes did you use? Are they automatic aperture type or
manual ones?
>Under the 50/1.8 loupe, I simply cannot tell the difference between the
>OM-1 and OM-2S shots or between those shots where I used telephoto lens
>support and those where I didn't. As for the lens itself, the natural light
shots appear >to be every bit as sharp as the flash shots.
>I used quite a bit of extension for the main shots.
How much?
>So I set up one final shot with only about 21mm extension
>out of doors that required a 1/4 sec/f22 exposure. I shot this with OM-1,
>with and without extra support. The shots are sharp. I believe that I can
>say that the shot with lens support *could* be sharper than the one
>without. I've gone back and forth, even using the 28/2.8 loupe. I'm not
>really sure it's actually sharper. BTW this shot is a vertical.
We don't know what roles the extension tubes played in your set-up, but it is
good to know under such a condition, the 200mm/4 gave sharp results.
>I guess I would have to conclude that OM-1 shutter shudders are mostly an
>irrelevant curiosity.
Would it be possible that if there is visible shutter shudders which might take
place after an exposure is made, you get sharp results even though you
experience some shock if you are hand-holding the camera? Quite often I have
experienced that the camera seemed to have jerked in my hands, but I did not
find any unsharp results afterward.
Initially when I first saw the results of Gary Reese's test results on the
200mm/4/5, I thought that either the lens support was not good in the case of
the 200mm plus 2xA combo or the focusing was not good to begin with given the
statement in which Gary reported the near-impossibility of focusing in one of
the test setups for the 200mm/4/5.
I would like to see Gary R.'s test setup redescribed so that some of us who have
equipment might replicate the test with a better focusing screen.
Since I am not into macro photography, I don't know how relevant the test result
of macro setup with the 200mm telephoto might be for more normal usage.
I have once produced a photograph of the sky filled with Canada geese with my
M-1 and the 200mm/5 hand-held, which was enlarged to 16x20. I think that the
200mm/5 is a nice compact telephoto lens which can be put to good use.
Tomoko Yamamoto
mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.charm.net/~tomokoy/
< 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 >
|