Olympus Q&A thread

For the record, setting the OM-4 shutter speed dial to B/60 does not turn off the circuit or turn off the battery drain. It will prevent the meter from turning on if the release is pushed partway. John
 
Thanks John. I guess I'll just have to live with the OM-4 as it is, without the upgraded board. (It did not shut off in my test). Still except for the problem original to it when new, my $95 OM-4 turns out to be in much better shape than I'd anticipated -- no dents or dings, some minor rubbing from a strap but without much brassing, clean viewfinder and screen, accurate meter. I've only had it two full days, so I don't know what the battery drain will turn out to be, but I like it well enough that taking the batteries out overnight won't be a deal-breaker. I fully expect to take them out if I won't be using the for a while. For the time being it fits the budget, and I get to play with a camera I lusted for when it first came out.

In case it is useful information for anyone: The serial # on mine, without the upgraded board from the T, is 1056163
 
Rodchenko said:
I adore my 35SPs. One doesn't have a functional light meter, which is a wee bit irritating, but no problem really. Favourite camera ever.

There are several threads on 35SPs in the Olympus rangefinder board. This is in SLRs, so I expect it's mainly about OMs.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Still finding my way around. I'll check out the rangefinder boards.
thanks
 
I have taken the habit of removing the batteries from my OM-2n, OM-2sp, OM-PC, OM-4T and even the OM-3 when not in use. I don't use them often enough and I'm sick and tired of finding dead batteries when I do decide to use one.

Of course the OM-3 works fine, meter less, without batteries. All my OM-1's preserve the batteries for a long, long time due to their simplicity and definitive OFF switch.

I think I need to devise sticky rubber dots to go over the battery covers to make it easy to get them on and off with only a finger.
 
I have a Shoe 4 that has cracked plastic on one side. The other side cracked all the way through and part of it fell off. I've still got all the pieces.

What is the best glue to use to join this plastic back together? Would model airplane glue work?
 
I would use a cyanoacrylate adhesive in great moderation, and be careful when screwing the hot shoe down. It does not require the grip of death to securely affix it to the pentaprism..
 
50mm Zuiko question --

I have a >1.1mil 50/1.4 and a "made in japan"-fronted 50/1.8. I have to sell one. My guess is that the best price for each is ~$100-120 for the 50/1.4 and $50 for the 50/1.8 (which is engraved USBR and has a number... as is an OM-1n I'm selling).

Which lens leads the other at f/2-f/4 in sharpness and contrast, generally? I won't have a chance to test them unfortunately. I presume from f/4 they're going to look pretty much the same.

Opinions? Many thanks.
 
specific to your question, you will want to keep the 50/1.8 MiJ. they can almost compete with the contax 50/1.7

build quality is better on the f1.4 lens. significantly so. still, I don't think you're going to get 50 for an engraved 50/1.8 MiJ and the 50/1.4 OMs in that serial range command a bit of a premium. you might get 150 for it. I'd sell it for that, as I wasn't overly impressed by the one I owned.

neither are high contrast. the only high contrast (like, Nikon high level) OM 50 I have is the 50/1.2. resolution of the 50/1.8 is still very, very good. field flatness and object shaping are still weak compared to the zeiss, though.
 
Thanks red. I was leaning that way, after earlier assuming I'd keep the f/1.4. The mij is a great size and if performance is basically as good I might as well get the money.

Someday the 50/2 macro and then me OM troubles is over. Actually they're already over. All I'm keeping is an OM-2n, one of these 50s, the 28/2.0 and the OM-Adaptall linkage for the Tamron 90/2.8 macro. I feel like Natty Bumpo gliding silent through a pensive wood.....
 
Update on repairing a cracked Shoe 4:

While gluing the cracked and separated plastic back together on the Shoe 4, it became apparent that the plastic itself has lost strength and flexibility over the years. The plastic has reached a brittle stage, where no permanent, usable, repair seems possible. It is kind of like the difference between a green twig of a tree and an old dried out twig; one twig will bend and spring back, the other will just snap in two. If the repair is just to restore appearance, then it can be glued back together. For actually using the plastic on something like the hot-shoe in real life, where it is going to get pressure applied to it, the plastic is no longer up to the task. That is what it looks like to me.
 
sparrow6224 said:
50mm Zuiko question --

I have a >1.1mil 50/1.4 and a "made in japan"-fronted 50/1.8. I have to sell one. My guess is that the best price for each is ~$100-120 for the 50/1.4 and $50 for the 50/1.8 (which is engraved USBR and has a number... as is an OM-1n I'm selling).

Which lens leads the other at f/2-f/4 in sharpness and contrast, generally? I won't have a chance to test them unfortunately. I presume from f/4 they're going to look pretty much the same.

Opinions? Many thanks.
Click to expand...

I have an older 50/1.4, and two 50/1.8 "made in Japan" lenses. The 50/1.8 lenses have noticeably better contrast and color reproduction. It is my understanding that the difference is due to the coatings, and that the 50/1.4 with serial numbers greater than 1.1M have newer coatings.

In any case, I bought your 50/1.4, so I'll give them all a workout and let you know what I find.
 
sreed2006 said:
The 50/1.8 lenses have noticeably better contrast and color reproduction. It is my understanding that the difference is due to the coatings, and that the 50/1.4 with serial numbers greater than 1.1M have newer coatings.

In any case, I bought your 50/1.4, so I'll give them all a workout and let you know what I find.
Click to expand...

Actually both low frequency contrast and color reproduction are influenced by glass choice / optical design, as well as coatings.

And the 50/1.4 itself almost certainly had a design change at some point. Even though I was unimpressed with the late serial number 50/1.4 I had and elected to keep my silvernose copy, there were some definite differences in OoF rendering which can only come from the optical design.

I wish you luck with the lens, and maybe if I see something really interesting I might track one down. But frankly, owning the 50/2, 50/1.2 AND 55/1.2, it's unlikely.

Oh, I was hoping someone might have a resource to find official Olympus MTF measurements/calculations for OM lenses. Does anyone know of one?
 
Lawrence A. said:
Thanks John. I guess I'll just have to live with the OM-4 as it is, without the upgraded board. (It did not shut off in my test). Still except for the problem original to it when new, my $95 OM-4 turns out to be in much better shape than I'd anticipated -- no dents or dings, some minor rubbing from a strap but without much brassing, clean viewfinder and screen, accurate meter. I've only had it two full days, so I don't know what the battery drain will turn out to be, but I like it well enough that taking the batteries out overnight won't be a deal-breaker. I fully expect to take them out if I won't be using the for a while. For the time being it fits the budget, and I get to play with a camera I lusted for when it first came out.

In case it is useful information for anyone: The serial # on mine, without the upgraded board from the T, is 1056163
Click to expand...


Just read this thread, I also left the battery in my OM-4 and left it
on B/60 but the battery still drained and is now pretty much dead,
but I did pay only $50.00 for the camera which is a sweet deal to say
the least so I'm keeping it, I really enjoy shooting with them.

Range
 
Macro/micro photography question: has anyone here tried going beyond 1:1 reproduction? I'd like to try getting 2:1 or 3:1 reproduction. I realize a bellows wil likely be necesary. Having a flat plane of focus is important too. I own the 50mm f3.5 macro, but it seems to be hitting its limit at 1:1. I'd mainly use it on a m43 body. I know there are several other macros on the om system and am having a tough time weighing their relative merits. Any suggestions? Thanks!
 
auto bellows or auto close up tool.

if you want that level of magnification, you want one of the really short / high mag macros like the 20, or maybe the 80.
 
Noll said:
Macro/micro photography question: has anyone here tried going beyond 1:1 reproduction? I'd like to try getting 2:1 or 3:1 reproduction. I realize a bellows wil likely be necesary. Having a flat plane of focus is important too. I own the 50mm f3.5 macro, but it seems to be hitting its limit at 1:1.
Click to expand...

For 3:1, you want to reverse your 50mm macro on a bellows. The 50 macro lenses of all manufacturers, I believe, are optimized for 1:3 or 1:4. That is, image 1/3 or so of the subject size. So when you reverse the lens, it's optimized for the magnification range you seek.

Also, remember that your effective aperture is (M+1) x the nominal aperture. That is, setting the lens at f/4 on a 3:1 setup is an effective aperture of f/16. Think about this in considering diffraction effects. Setting f/8 would be effective f/32 with diffraction probably degrading your image.

The Olympus 80mm macro lens is fairly unique in being optimized for 1:1. It's a terrific lens.

Macro is stimulating and challenging. Read up and experiment. Focus stacking is an important new tool for achieving DOF.
 
A little more: Olympus made a series of special lenses optimized for images size greater than the subject:

MACRO 20mm f/3.5 - 4X to 12X
MACRO 38mm f/3.5 - 1.8X to 6X

These are exotic and expensive, still expensive today. Other manufacturers had similar: Nikon Ultra-Micro-Nikkors, Zeiss Luminars, and Leitz Photars. Ditto for Minolta.

For 3:1, a good 50mm macro lens reversed is very, very good.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
A little more: Olympus made a series of special lenses optimized for images size greater than the subject:

MACRO 20mm f/3.5 - 4X to 12X
MACRO 38mm f/3.5 - 1.8X to 6X

These are exotic and expensive, still expensive today. Other manufacturers had similar: Nikon Ultra-Micro-Nikkors, Zeiss Luminars, and Leitz Photars. Ditto for Minolta.

For 3:1, a good 50mm macro lens reversed is very, very good.
Click to expand...

Thanks both for the tips.

How would someone reverse mount the 50mm macro? Are we talking reversed by itself on a bellows or reverse-mounted onto another lens via double sided filter? Sorry if this is a dumb question but this is foreign territory for me here.

I have eyed up the 80mm macro in the past - if it can achieve really sharp 1:1 then that might still do the job. The 20mm & 38mm make sense too - given their price they are not out of the question but will require some careful homework before going that route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom