on 5/12/02 8:47 PM, Jim L'Hommedieu at lamadoo@xxxxxxxx wrote:
snippo...
> I suspected that the tripod was the chief culprit but Gary implies that the OM
> bodies themselves (blasphemy alert!) are not suitable to super-tele work. Why
> would I buy a 250mm in a mount that's not compatible with super-tele work?
>
> Gary implies that a heavier body would be an asset. Maybe at 200mm and
> above, a heavy Nikkormat is the tool of choice. If I used a Nikkormat as a
> hammer to beat my OM-4, I know it would be...... uh.... a short fight.
>
> Lamadoo
>
Well, I think you hit on the wrong solution... you need more weight on that
OM body... like an MD-2 or Winder 2. There's always a solution that will
allow you to buy more equipment! <g>
I wonder if there is a way to tie the lens tripod mount and the camera/motor
tripod mount together, thus steadying out the system some? Probably require
a custom machined setup, but what's another $100 on a $3000 lens?
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|