At 07:37 PM 7/27/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>I just looked through the June issue of Popular Photography and noticed
>Keppler was expounding on mirror lockup
snip
George Anderson posted a round of correspondence with someone who might
have been Keppler back in May. Probably a bunch of us emailed Keppler.
The most irritating thing about the article is that it singled out the
OM-4T specifically as a camera that did NOT have a MLU equivalent, and then
went on in another part of the article to tout a couple bods that have --
surprise! -- timer/MLU/aperture pre-fire (albeit with 2-4 seconds to fire
rather than our 10). I sent Keppler an email saying that the OM-2S/4T
timer should be considered an equivalent to MLU since I felt I was
certainly using it that way and the argument that a 2 second delay is MLU
but a 10 second delay is not MLU is specious. I got this response from
Keppler (which I didn't share at the time because it added nothing new to
what George had already shared):
QUOTE:
"May 20, 1999
Joel Wilcox
jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
A number of other readers have pointed out the 10 second delay mirror lock up
system used on Olympus cameras. While a 10 second delay may be just fine for
photographing a static subject, it wouldn't do for any active one. You might
say that the bird would have flown the coop. I can understand a 2 second
delay as being possibly feasible, but 10 seconds, no.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Keppler"
UNQUOTE
I sent a response saying that a delayed shutter release of any kind is not
very useful for anything but static objects, regardless of relative length
of the delay. He declined to communicate further. Keppler is OK, but I
think he was brain-dead on this one. Sorry to all who went through this
before, but the man asked ...
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 >
|