At 05:40 PM 5/30/99 -0700, Kelton you wrote:
>>suggested that the OM-1 is OK with long lens support and why Gary's test
>>with the OM-1, long lens support, and 250/f2 were disappointing.
>
>No, Gary didn't use a long lens support with the 250. The 250 has its own
>L-shaped tripod bracket, which was used to secure the lens to the tripod.
>An interesting sidenote: The 250 bracket has 4 different screwholes along
>the base of its "foot." I've always thought a person was supposed to use
>the hole at which the lens/camera naturally balanced, but Gary
>enlightened me, explaining that using an UNBALANCED mounting point would
>lessen the effect of vibrations. Makes sense to me, now that I think
>about it. I guess I've been suffering under "learning interference" from
>telescope mounting methods, which demand balanced mounts for the
>motorized tracking to function correctly. (D'oh!)
>
Thanks for pointing out my error! I made an assumption that he was using
the long lens support, but I reviewed Gary's original note and you must be
quite right. This is extremely helpful information and may have a bearing
on the OM-1's poor performance in Gary's tests, since one possibility is
that the OM-1 should not be used with tripod mounted lenses. Other lens
support methods may quell the diabolical shudder. Another possibility to be
considered.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< 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 >
|