On my examples, at least, I find that the 2N has a greater usable range
for TTL flash than the 4T. It will handle closer distances and wider
apertures by about 1 stop or so. This means its TTL system is faster
reacting. This may be due to using analog electronics for TTL shutoff
rather than emulating then with a digital computer.
OM LCDs seem to last longer than most. Many early LCD-using cameras are
dead and irreparable now. In 20 years most 4 s and 2sp s will be dead,
but the 1 s and non-SP 2 s should still be going strong.
>
> 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.
< 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 >
|