An interesting observation. Since there was no need to accommodate the
camera and since a circular polarizer is more expensive than linear
there must be some reason not related directly to the camara. Maybe
someone knows. I don't.
Chuck Norcutt
Walt Wayman wrote:
> My thinking exactly, and I was surprised upon examining mine to see
> that both the inner and outer parts appear to be circular, i.e., only
> exhibiting a polarizing effect in one direction, looking from the
> camera side. Must be some reason.
>
> Walt
>
> -- "Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic."
> -- Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Chuck
> Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> I don't know but the instructions only identify usage on the OM-1
>> and OM-2. There wouldn't have been a need for a circular polarizer
>> on either of those cameras. But even if it's linear it should work
>> fine in auto mode on the later cameras. And you can't make a
>> manual reading from the flash so you'll have to use it in auto mode
>> in any case. In short, I don't think it makes any difference.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Johann Thorsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi you gurus, I am wondering if the polarizer filter for the T-10
>>> ringflash is linear or circular, does anybody know that?
>>>
>>> J
>
> ============================================== List usage info:
> http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies:
> olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|