>===== Original Message From Wayne Culberson <waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>Joel Wilcox wrote:
>>
>> Some of us prefer the OM-2S,
>
>
>> , line up shutter speed and stop to match the reading and click to
>> manual and spot meter around the scene to verify the reading before
>> shooting. This is functionality one can only wish the OM-1/2 had. And
>> though you can do the same with OM-3/4, the procedure is much less
>> fluid. Plus, the center-weighted averaging meter is just better in the
OM-2S.
>>
>
>Admittedly, I'm just getting started with both cameras, but for me right
>now I find the spot metering on the 2000 easier to use than the 2s
<snip>
I know this is heresy, since the 2000 is not from pure olympus
>bloodlines, so what am I missing here
Wayne,
I'm the other person on the list who thinks the OM2000 is OK. <g> I think the
OM2000 is easier to use since the switch controls only the transition from
spot to averaging, but I think the OM-2S is more interesting/powerful because
the switch between auto and manual is also the switch between averaging and
spot. The combination of the two operations is very efficient. If you want
to shoot only with spot, you're there in manual mode. If you want to shoot
with averaging, you start in auto, but you can move to manual/spot if you have
any doubts about the exposure. Why not shoot in manual all the time? Some
people do, but I prefer to shoot in auto (if I know the exposure will be
acceptable) because I like to bracket in auto and retain the same f-stop among
all the brackets. Ironically, the ability to spot meter allows me to use auto
mode a little more intelligently.
The meter in the OM2000 is very good. I've gotten excellent results with that
body, but the OM-2S gives me greater flexibility.
Joel W.
< 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 >
|