No difference between bodies that I have noticed with longer lenses (up
to the 300/4.5). The last time I noticed a difference was when I bought
the OM1N 4 years ago and found that I could not focus very easily. It
was only 2 years later (after frustrating out-of-focus shots appearing
repeatedly) that I discovered that I needed spectacles. The OM4 that I
had been using had masked the problem. Once I got specs (early 98) it
all got suddenly better.
Chris
~~~~~ Wayne Shumaker said:
>Although this might not apply here, since the 21/3.5 is such a light
>weight lens, I have noticed with some off brand tele-zooms that the
>split image will not look right at infinity. The top part of the split
>image will be just a bit blurrier. I have wondered if the weight of the
>lens combined with loose mounting gives the focal plane a tilt. Or more
>likely, the internal optics may be slightly askew, causing the same
>effect. It would probably be harder to see on a totally matte screen
>unless you had a full frame object at infinity to look at. I do not see
>this problem with my 65-200 zuiko. If it varies with the bodies, it
>could be any number of alignment issues. In my experience, this is more
>notices with telephotos than with wide angles. Do you notice any
>similar effects with longer lenses on the different bodies?
>
>At 09:01 AM 7/13/99 +0200, you wrote:
>>Thanks Warren
>>
>>It is different with each of the three bodies, and depending on which
>>lens I have in the eyecup (or my spectacles instead). I certainly would
>>not have noticed it with only a matte screen in the viewfinder.
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
><> *** Chris Barker ***
mailto:cmib@xxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|