John Hermanson wrote:
> Yes, on the 3 and 3Ti they coulda shoulda used a self timer mechanism right
> out of an OM-1.
>
And yet ... those are pretty useless. It seems to me that Gary's lens
tests showed pretty conclusively that the mirror lock-up of the OM-1 was
singularly ineffective at controlling vibration.
Starting With the OM-2Sp, they remedied that in with pre-fire of both
mirror and aperture and continued with the OM-4 series, OM-40(PC) and
OM2000.
Perhaps with their new, premier mechanical bodies, they couldn't come up
with a practical, economic solution and preferred not to put on a
feature that didn't really work.
I don't recall at this distance in time about the original F, but the
Nikon F2 is far superior to the OM-1 in that particular respect. The
mechanical lock operates both aperture and mirror mechanisms. Together
with the greater mass, they made it far less prone to vibration caused
unsharpness.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|