On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:12:19PM -0700, will biesele wrote:
> Seems like I heard here that Olympus/Maitani claimed the 3's didn't need
> mirror lockup since they were so smooth. ?????.
This is what all manufacturer says, saving the cost for mirror lockup.
Does the mean that the OM 4 mirror is that much less smooth ?????????
>
> Since the aperture mechanism isn't needed for astrophotography, how hard
> would it be to remove the aperture mechanism from an OM1 body? It would
> also be handy for macro with the bellows or the manual macro lenses.
When I´m right Olympus offered something called "Belichtungsgehäuse" in german
->"Exposure case?" for use on Microsopes instead of a OM.
This were stripped off bodies. No viewfinder, don`t know weather
They`ve had a shutter, just heard of them were for scientific use,
When the camera is just needed to keep the film in place.
Frieder Faig
>. I dislike the unadjustable self-timer delay for mirror and aperture
> > prefire on the OM-4(T(i))s, but find it preferrable to nothing.
When the lever is turned bach, the shutter fires imedeatly.
>> Gary's
> > tests don't make everything clear, but they sure do make the point about
> > vibration reduction.
The funny thing: The most strudy tripod meed most vibration reduction.
Damping is the importend part.
Frieder Faig
< 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 >
|