Walt Wayman wrote:
>I was a Pentax user before I switched to Olympus in 1984. I was won over by
>the multi-spot metering of the OM-4, not because of the size of the body,
>which wasn't significantly smaller or lighter than my Pentax Spotmatic. There
>was also the bayonet lens mount, which I, at least at that time, considered
>superior to the screw-mount Pentax.
>
>Anyhow, had I known when I made the switch about the OM vibration problem, I
>might have stayed with Pentax or moved to another marque. Much, much too late
>now; way too much gear under the bridge. Going through old slides and
>negatives from my Pentax days, I long ago concluded that certain stuff shot
>with the Pentax is sharper than similar shots taken with the Oly gear,
>particularly if using a cable release or a long lens on a tripod. The
>hand-held stuff, even at slow shutter speeds, seems generally about the same.
>
>I think the difference may be that the mechanism that shuts down the lens in
>an OM body moves in a rotary motion perpendicular to the direction the camera
>is aimed, resulting in a twisting force, while in the Pentax, the movement is
>straight ahead, parallel to the direction the camera is pointed, thereby
>reducing any effect possibly caused by vibration. Makes sense to me, and
>although it will be considered blasphemy by many here, I think it's a design
>flaw in the OMs.
>
>
I'm sure it's not unique to the OMs, although it may be worse than for
camera bodies that are heavier. I think all the major bayonet mounts use
rotary action for stop-down. If you stayed with Pentax, you would have
had to stay with the screw mount lenses.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|