Actually, I did test an OM-3t and my recollection was that it
performed better than the 4t since they do not have the electronic
release that has a tendency to get sticky over time. The tested
OM-3t was sold through eBay several years ago. My best 3t I kept
for some time, was never tested, and was the last one I let go.
John H would probably know best on the actual performance
of a 3t versus a 4t. 4t's probably see more use and abuse also.
The 3t I tested was better than 10% accurate, which exceeds the
performance spec. As I said, the 4t is good if 25% accurate,
but it varies more from shot to shot.
Wayne
At 09:19 AM 12/21/2008, you wrote:
>WayneS wrote:
>>
>> But as you say, 1/2000 is rarely used so the margin of error on
>> lower speeds is rarely affected. If 1/2000 is way off, maybe 1/500 will
>> be affected. I never tested any of the OM-3t's because at the time,
>> I did not own one.
>>
>
>Which answered my next question. :)
>
>I am going to assume my OMs are pretty close. Not that I'd really know or
>care because nearly all of my exposures are 1/500 and slower. I suppose I
>use 1/2000 on the E-1 once in a while, but that's probably variable too.
>
>AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|