on 17/05/2004 00:44, Dado dela Cruz at dado@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I have an OM2n and would like to know if it's normal for the old OM2n's to be
> inconsistent with their long exposure capability.
Hola Dado,
I have some hand written notes about a comparison test I run on 1981 which
might be of interest. Then, I had my own OM2 and a friend's 2n, both new. I
used a red LED as a light source on an absolutely dark room. I had two 50mm
1.4: mine was a G.Zuiko and my friend's a Zuiko MC #over 1000000. Fresh
batteries on both cameras, tripod mounted and LED centered and focused on
split image. Hope to have put a piece of undeveloped film inside, honestly I
don't remember. Casio chronograph start and stop on mirror up and down
noise.
Test measured as follows:
OM2n
ASA100 @ f2.8
Zuiko MC G.Zuiko
24.3 sec. 21.9 sec.
24.5 sec. 22.0 sec.
24.4 sec. 21.6 sec.
OM2
ASA100 @ f2.8
Zuiko MC G.Zuiko
27.6 sec. 25.4 sec.
27.6 sec. 25.2 sec.
27.8 sec. 24.7 sec.
OM2n
ASA400 @ f5.6
Zuiko MC G.Zuiko
21.4 sec. 18.1 sec.
21.2 sec. 17.7 sec.
21.4 sec. 17.9 sec.
OM2
ASA400 @ f5.6
Zuiko MC G.Zuiko
19.9 sec. 18.2 sec.
19.9 sec. 18.1 sec.
19.6 sec. 17.9 sec.
Differences noticed when switching lenses led me to compare at full
aperture:
OM2n
ASA100 @ f1.4
Zuiko MC G.Zuiko
8.1 sec. 7.3 sec.
8.1 sec. 7.2 sec.
8.0 sec. 7.2 sec.
OM2
ASA100 @ f1.4
Zuiko MC G.Zuiko
11.3 sec. 10.1 sec.
11.2 sec. 10.0 sec.
11.2 sec. 09.9 sec.
Also have a set of measures of my own OM2/G.Zuiko showing exposure variation
at different ASA rating.
Regards,
Fernando.
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"
|