Low light test does not need a lens. All you need is body cap and eyepiece
taped over. You need total darkness to see haw far the camera is capable of
going. A lens and an LED just confuses the matter.
----------------------------------------------------
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: "Dado dela Cruz" <dado@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Long exposure capability of OM2n
>
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Thanks a lot for this very informative result of your experiment on OM2's
> low light exposure capability. I'm very sure many readers would be
> interested to know about that results.
>
> My observation is that with MC lenses, exposures are longer, contrary to
the
> belief that multicoated lenses transmit more light.
>
> But today, after so many years, does your OM2n still give this low light
> capability?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dado
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile" <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:30 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: Fw: Long exposure capability of OM2n
>
>
> > 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"
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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"
|