MDs mate to the camera just the same way as the Winders. You could argue
that MD2 on a 3 or 4 has the extra bit for the motor rewind, but since that
is retracted except when rewinding, I can't see it makes any difference.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Adam Long
Sent: 06 August 2003 10:22
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] ] MD2 vs Winder 2
I have just downloaded a clip from C.H. Ling's site. Although its a MD1 not
2, the noise is much better. I think a lot is due to the fact a single frame
is advanced in half the time.
No doubt the MD2 would be even better.
My concern is partly due to image - I've just started getting a few
commisions. Turning up with just a tatty champagne 4ti has lead to a few
funny looks and 'I used to have a camera like that' comments. (they didn't).
Adding a winder at least makes the camera a bit bigger (people seem to
expect a pro's camera to be bigger than their own). However the winder 2
makes a very 'amateur' sound!!! It doesn't bother me but it seems these
people feel they need to be impressed to get their money's worth.
I also like the idea of having the drive on the camera and the power in my
pocket (handheld) or in my hand as a cable release for macro work with a
tripod. And then there's the portrait release, and motorized rewind (to
impress the client of course!). So lots of reasons other than just 5fps.
Final question - does anyone know if it mates to the camera any more
securely than a winder? Especially for macro the 'play' in the system is
annoying.
Or perhaps I need a 65-116 and 80f4 (with tripod mount) instead of my 90f2.5
- I'm sure I can justify it somehow!
Adam
< 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 >
|