I agree, Rand
Of course TTL is good for macrophotography (and photomicrography!)
But you will not often need spot-measurement, certainly not in
bigger-than-lifesize macro.
I think this is the main reason that in laboratories you will find
more OM2N's than OM4(T)'s mounted on microscopes or VST/bellows
set-ups.
Another important reason is the better viewfinder. Especially in the
low light situations often met in macro/micro every extra ray of light
reaching the screen instead of passing _through_ the mirror counts.
I also think that the OM2N's will finally outlive the OM4's. LCD's
don't last that long, so we are told...
Frank van Lindert
Utrecht NL.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:00:53 -0500, "Rand E." <rtomcala@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Apparently those of you younger folk on the list fail to remember that
>the TTL feature was introduced with the OM2 and OM2n models and they, in
>all probability, remains the mainstay (due to numbers) to this day.
>Remember that it will most likely be the 2 and the 2n that will remain
>with the factory produced (not upgraded wi 4T ckt bd) after the majority
>of the OM2s's and OM4's succumb to their frailties.
> Yes, I also own an OM4 and love it's features. But if I go on a shoot
>where I "must" get the shots I feel better if I have my OM2 or OM2n
>along.
> Oh yes, one of the major reasons that went with Olympus OM in the
>early '70's was TTL with macro photography on the OM2......it still
>hasn't changed.
> I realize that the glamour is with the 2s, the 4's, but you also have
>to remember the true work horse of the line is, and will most likely
>remain, the OM2 and the OM2n (along with the non TTL OM1 and OM1n).
>IMHO,
>Rand E.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Wm Biesele wrote:
>>
>> Phillip Franklin wrote
>> ==============================================
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> For macro work you definitely want either the 2s or 4 or 4T(Ti) (or I guess
>> the 3Ti if you
>> have the extra bucks). Trying to figure flash exposures is too difficult and
>> cumbersome
>> without TTL OTF. I suppose it's why OM introduced it back when they did.
>> TTL OTF is a
>> godsend for macro work. Either the T10 or T8 or T28 or even the T20 or t32
>> is the way to go.
>> Of course shooting macro with available or tungsten light can be done with
>> about any of the
>> bodies. However if you are seriously into macro plan on using TTL OTF. I
>> think that is
>> where the OM system has little or no competition. I use various 1 series
>> macro screens. I
>> think I've got all of them and I like the 1-12 best.
>>
>> =====================================================
>>
>> I think I'll try the 2s. Macro flash computation is not that tough (it's in
>> the calculator).
>> With flower shots the macro OTF can try to light up the background and over
>> expose the flower.
>> Getting closer helps but DOF gets worse. I've gotten some unusual results
>> using a grey card
>> as a background, some flowers transmit noticeable amounts of light which
>> colors the grey card.
>>
>> I appreciate the advice on the 1-12, a 1-11 was in the plan and a now a 1-12
>> is too.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill B.
>
< 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 >
|