>Joel Wilcox had written:
>>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.
At 09:02 PM 5/12/99 -0400, Tomoko wrote:
>As I recall that you saw shutter shudders when the 200mm/4 was attached to
the
>OM-1, but not with the OM-2S.
Yes, correct.
Joel had written:
>>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.
Tomoko asked:
>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?
You have summarized the setup exactly. I used Vivitar auto extension tubes,
68mm extension for all shots of the striped orchid. With almost all the
shots I used the timer to fire the shot. I did NOT lock up the mirror on
the OM-1 simply because my tests with the laser pointer did not seem to
show that mirror slap was a factor.
Joel wrote:
>>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.
Tomoko responded:
>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.
Since I did not use any precautions to neutralize possible mirror slap or
aperture stop down, the only role that I can see the extension tubes
playing is in the linkage to stop down the aperture. This I would assume
would introduce a variable which would deteriorate rather than improve the
final result. In other words, I don't think the tubes would improve the
odds of getting sharp pictures, rather the other way around.
Joel wrote:
>>I guess I would have to conclude that OM-1 shutter shudders are mostly an
>>irrelevant curiosity.
Tomoko:
>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.
>
I'm stumped by this question. I never notice anything bad hand-holding
other than my own caffeine-induced camera shake :( I think I would have to
agree with John H. that Olympus has effectively neutralized the *effect* of
camera shake despite the evidence of homebrew tests.
Tomoko:
>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.
>
I'll let Gary jump in here if he wants. My recollection is that he used
several means of long lens support in addition to a somewhat heavier Bogen
tripod than mine. If there are faults in his results, my guess is that they
don't have to do with his setup. But I am baffled. But the other thing I
wanted to stress about the set of slides I took is that relative to each
other (OM-1, OM-2S, flash, non-flash) they look equally sharp. This
doesn't mean they look as sharp as a 100/f2. I did have two frames on the
roll taken with the Vivitar 100/f2.8 macro. They looked as sharp as this
lens, but that might not mean much to anybody else on the list.
I believe the biggest favor I've done for myself in improving my results
with the 200/f4 is adding the Bogen 3221. I got a fairly sharp shot of a
butte wall (http://members.tripod.com/jdubikins/test/wallmv.htm) with OM-2S
and 200/f4 on a Slik U220 in a stiff wind hanging my bag from a hook on the
bottom of the post. But the Bogen is much more rigid and the mounting stud
for the head is thicker. Little things can make a huge difference.
Joel
< 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 >
|