On 03-Jun-99 Terry Mair wrote:
> Alas I only have 3 an OM-1 md, OM-2n, and my newly acquired (to replace one I
> sold in a moment of
> insanity) OM-4, I may make it 4 if you would be so kind as to say why you
> like the 2sp over the 4 so
> much!?
> Terry
<My original post + a few other posts snipped for bandwidth reduction>
Sure, I will elaborate.
First, let me say that I like both the OM4 and the OM2sp very much (as do I
like all my OM's a lot). However both OM4 and OM2sp have spot-metering,
which is what I use the most (solely, actually).
There are many differences between the OM2sp and OM4. However my usage is
almost solely manual setting of aperature (spelling?) and shutter speed using a
single spot-metering. The OM2sp and OM4 differ (among other things) in that the
OM2sp allows only one spot-metering while the OM4 allows more (I think up to
8). However since I rarely use more than one spot-metering anyways, the OM2sp
with its simpler design (i.e. fewer buttons and less viewfinder information)
appeals to me the most.
The fact that the OM2sp has a full-automatic "program" mode or that the OM4
enables spot-metering to be used while in "auto" mode does not mean much to me
- I cannot remember ever using these features. Likewise for the "highlight"
and "shadow" functions of the OM4 - I prefer to have such things under my own
control rather than asking the camera to decide for me :)
So in short, I find the OM2sp "simpler" - without being "simplifyed" to an
extend where it's lacking features. Sure, from time to time the
multi-spot-metering of the OM4 comes in very handy. But most often I'm using
only a single metering even with the OM4.
Also, the viewfinder of the OM2sp is - in my humble opinion - nicer. I prefer
the vertical display of the OM2sp before the horizontal layout of the OM4.
Also, the viewfinder of the OM2sp in manual mode is nice and simple - almost as
the viewfinder of the OM1 (check some WWW-side for a shot of the viewfinder -
I'm sure there must be one somewhere): there is a "bar", supposed to be
positioned between two arrows for correct exposure. Also, it is possible by
observing the length of the bar to see how much over- or underexposed a picture
will be. The functionality is the same as the bar in manual mode on the OM4.
But the bar is vertical and the viewfinder info is more sparse (i.e. no shutter
speed, no flashing dots indicating the spot meterings). Nice and simple - and I
like it. Probably, though, this is just a matter of habit (as I use the OM2sp
the most, I've also gotten used to the layout of the viewfinder).
Should I say a "negative" thing about the OM2sp, then it would be that the
motor drive cannot be used for rewinding the film.....if I should decide how to
design an OM5, I would design an OM2sp with the ability to take advantage of
rewinding the film using the motor drive.
[*seeking shelter to protect myself from the flamewar this may rise*]
That said, both the OM2sp and the OM4 are parts of the standard equipment, which
I carry around. However if forced to choose, I think I would stick with the
OM2sp. On the other hand, I don't intend to experience enough "insanity" (as
Mr. Terry Mair calls it) and get rid of any of these cameras....
Mange hilsner / Sincerely
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|