On Sun, 12 May 2002, Jim Brokaw wrote:
> 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>
>
<SNIP>
Actually, I own a 300/4.5. Not quite the 250mm, but still a large enough
focal length. I can actually make hand-held shots (fast shutter speed, of
course) with that on an OM2n if being really careful - and if I mount an
MD1 with the "pistol grip".
I remember thinking that the postol grip of the MD's was completely
stupid, but after getting and using the 300mm, I realize that it enables
me to hold the gear much more steady.
Of course, the 300/4.5 weigh significantly less (3 times less) than the
250/2. I am willing to redo my hand-holding tests with the 250/2 if anyone
will "donate" one for the experiment :)
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|