At 04:17 AM 6/26/99 EDT, Gary R. wrote:
>I've posted four new lens tests at:
>http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>
>These include:
>1. 200mm f/4 MC Zuiko
> a. with Joel Wilcox's overhauled OM-1, mirror lock up and the Bogen
>Telephoto Lens Support
> b. with Joel's Wilcox's overhauled OM-1 and just mirror lock up.
>2. 135mm f/4.5 MC Zuiko Macro w/ OM-4, mirror and auto diaphram prefire and
>Bogen T.L.S.
>3. 65-200mm f/4 MC Zuiko w/ OM-4, mirror and auto diaphram prefire and Bogen
>T.L.S.
>
>Note that it probably takes the utmost in lens and camera stabilizing to get
>good results out of the 200mm f/4. The hunch that a shutter overhaul in an
>OM-1 can result in less vibration probably doesn't hold true. A vertical
>shake in the left part of the slide at f/5.6 (1/60th sec.) and f/8 (1/30th
>sec.), on Joel's overhauled OM-1 (original model), is likely due to residual
>vibration from the auto diaphram mechanism.
>
I don't know if this closes the book on the OM-1/200/f4 shutter/aperture
stopdown discussion, but it certainly closes a chapter (for me). While I
did independently discover that the telephoto lens support helped me get
better pictures with the 200/f4, I'm not sure I ever would have noticed
that the electronic shutters were superior to the mechanical ones (of the
OM-1, anyway).
I'm very grateful to Gary for his testing and re-testing. Many of us could
not and most of us would not do what he has done.
Gary, I would have to say that you have added enormously to both the
knowledge of and pleasure I take in the OM system. In the context of this
list, what greater good is there? Hats off to you!
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 >
|