I think the CWA metering behaviour you experienced was normal. I looked
into it a few months ago for my OM2n and discovered that the weighting
is basically a horizontal strip down the middle section of the field of
view (in landscape orientation). This would tally with what you got
from the '4TI. I'm sure someone will be able to give a more accurate
answer and remember where the picture is of the CWA pattern.
James
On 11 May 2004, at 10:46 am, Matt Boland wrote:
>
> I returned that camera to the store because I was not happy with the
> meter or the amount of physical damage to the body.
>
> The batteries in my OLY1 are definely mercury. They are still available
> last time I looked from www.px625.com. I have a few in the fridge.
>
> The metering problem gets stranger...
>
> When looking through the viewfinder at something that is brighter on
> one
> side, and using CWA metering the camera would return a higher reading
> if
> it was say horizontal than if it was vertical. This does NOT happen on
> my OM1 which as you might hope, does not change. How many sensors make
> up the CWA in an OM4Ti? If there is say 4, then two may have been
> reading high. Just a theory.
>
>
>
> John Hermanson wrote:
>> To get an idea if the meters are even reasonably close, use same type
>> of
>> lens on both (like a 50), point them at an evenly lit blank wall.
>> Are you
>> sure the battery in the OM-1 is mercury? They have not been made in
>> years.
>> If you bought the battery in a store recently and it says 625A or
>> 625U, it
>> is alkaline 1.55V and throws the meter off as much as 3 stops. So,
>> that
>> would be a problem right there.
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> John Hermanson www.zuiko.com
>> mail: omtech@xxxxxxxxx
>> Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
>> 21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743-4714
>> 631-424-2121
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matt Boland" <mattboland@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 12:44 AM
>> Subject: [OM] OM4Ti meter Vs OM1 meter
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is my first posting to this list, so I'll say hello.
>>>
>>> "hello". I have an OM1n, a 24/F2.8 (one word - gem), a 28/F2.0 (one
>>> word
>>> - gem), 50/F1.8, a 135/F3.5, and a, 85-250/F5.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have an OM4Ti for trial for 7 days and the metering is up to a stop
>>> and a half over what my trusty and ever faithful OM1 meter says. To
>>> be
>>> truthful, I have been comparing them indoors under artificial
>>> lighting.
>>> It has been raining here in Australia (at least where I live) so I
>>> cannot do the sunny 16 test.
>>>
>>> I have shot some Fuji Sensia 100 and 400, and it seems like there is
>>> underexposure, though not by a stop and a half.
>>>
>>> Since I think the meters are different (is the OM-1 selenium and the
>>> OM4Ti CdS ? - please correct me if I'm wrong ) maybe they are not
>>> responding the same under artificial light? Although I remember
>>> testing
>>> another OM4Ti (which ended up going back because the low voltage
>>> sensing
>>> circuitry seemed to lock the mirror up and shut the whole thing down
>>> at
>>> least once per roll) and the OM1, and they were identical.
>>>
>>> I have new Hg batteries in the OM1 and new silver oxides in the
>>> OM4Ti,
>>> (yes they ARE fresh and have been tested with a multimeter) so this
>>> is
>>> not the issue.
>>>
>>> Is the metering cheap to have calibrated?
>>>
>>> I wonder if the camera is worth the money, or whether I should send
>>> it
>>> back? The bottom plate is scuffed and scratched and shows minor
>>> deformities around the tripod mount. There is heavy brassing around
>>> the
>>> strap rings (it is a OM4Ti black) and a minor dent near one of the
>>> strap
>>> rings. (This one is minor, I did not see it in the first day.) The
>>> rewind knob is brassed, but internally it is clean, the pressure
>>> plate
>>> is not worn and everything else looks fine. All functions work as
>>> they
>>> should, apart from the metering issue. The asking price is $AUD750
>>> (about $USD540).
>>>
>>> In your opinion is this a fair price?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, I look forward to communicating with other OM
>>> users.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Boland (BEng) Phone : 61 7 5594 9824
>>> R&D Engineer Mobile : 61 4 0835 1421
>>> Odyx Corporation Pty Ltd email : mattboland@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> To contact the list admins:
>> mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Matt Boland (BEng) Phone : 61 7 5594 9824
> R&D Engineer Mobile : 61 4 0835 1421
> Odyx Corporation Pty Ltd email : mattboland@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To contact the list admins:
> mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|