Folks
Another thing to remember about the "enlarging" Polaroid backs: they
lose light both in the magnification of the image (unavoidable due to
physics, just like a tele-converter) and in inefficiencies of the
optics. There will also be a degradation of the image sharpness.
In order to "proof" the scene, you'll have to open the aperture some
number of stops (I guess 1 to 3 stops) or change the shutter speed.
Hardly a true "proof" shot.
Vaughan
--> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:51:01 -0400
> From: Skip Williams <skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [OM] Polaroid Olympus?
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, I understood that Polaroid backs produce an
> image the same size as the film. The currently available units use fiber
> optics to transfer the image from the film plane ot the Polaroid film's
> surface, thus the 1:1 match in size.
>
> What I should have said is that I wouldn't see much of a need for a
> Polaroid camera that accepts Zuiko lenses unless I was shooting all-manual
> shots. In that case, it would do nicely to check exposure and/or flash
> angle. What would be the most valuable would be to check portrait, macro,
> or commercial lighting using an OM body with it's TTL metering, etc. before
> committing to film. Practically, you'd have to have a dedicated body to
> get much use of it; otherwise you'd be stuck in the middle of a roll.
>
> Medium format, with it's removable back systems in common use, is a much
> more feasible format for a P back. And as you point out, the larger images
> size makes a big difference when evaluating the image.
>
> Skip
>
< 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 >
|