reiki_
Well-known
Ok I just tried stoping down by button and then shooting and the decrease in vibration is really noticable. great advice .
ChrisN
Striving
Thanks! I had to check this on my Pentax LX - with MLU the aperture is closed down, but I then must use a cable release for best effect. The same mechanism controls the self-timer and the MLU - I can implement one or the other, but not both at the same time!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
And the convenient part is the stopping down button is easily operated with a fingertip.
It's funny ... I started a thread about this months ago when I discovered it and to my amazement the thread got completely ignored!
The difference in reaction through the camera is really noticable ... I'm glad someone else has actually tried it and noticed the difference!
reiki_
Well-known
And the convenient part is the stopping down button is easily operated with a fingertip.
It's funny ... I started a thread about this months ago when I discovered it and to my amazement the thread got completely ignored!
The difference in reaction through the camera is really noticable ... I'm glad someone else has actually tried it and noticed the difference!
Really really useful. Makes me want a leica less and less.
AzzA
Established
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply.
I had a look at the website and he does seem to have some. But at $13.79 they seem pretty pricey (understandable though).
I think though the OM-2S has the same battery cap so I might try and find a parts camera for similar or not much more $$.
Oh but if anyone has a spare battery cap and will take less than $13.79 for it let me know!
lovely shot.
That Porta is terrific stuff too.
D.O'K.
Darren O'Keeffe.
Does anyone happen to know whether the OM 50mm f1.8 & 1.4 (which to me seem to give exceptional performance) were versions of one of the classic lens formulae (e.g. Planar,Sonnar or whatever), or were they original optical designs?
Thanks in advance,
D.
Thanks in advance,
D.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Virtually all such lenses for SLRs no matter who made them are double gauss designs. This is also the design of the Leica 50mm Summicron and the current Zeiss Planar, which is not the same as the classic Planar design.
johnnygulliver
Established
The fundamental undoing of the Olympus OM system camera bodies are not mirror slap (yes, it's mostly true the rangefinder vs. slr had-holdability is an old wives' tale - few SLR mirrors have enough inertia to cause visible vibration in the hands of a human being, which have a lot more inertia than a tiny mirror) - but rather the aperture stop-down mechanism.
Unlike, say, Nikon F, where the body merely has to gently prod the aperture to stop down, which does so under the power of its own spring, an OM body provides the full force for the stop-down. The body has to slam aperture lever with all it's got, in order to be able to move giant aperture stop-down mechanisms of lenses like the 250mm f/2.0 or 1000mm f/11.
The aforementioned Gary Reese lens tests illustrates the disastrous effect this has on image quality taken with certain lenses on tripod - regardless of mirror lockup.
The effect is substantial, and often makes OM cameras much better hand-held (with "wet" vibration absorption by a human being) than on a tripod. I use a giant top-of-the-line Gitzo Tele Studex Carbon Fibre tripod (which easily holds my 4x5in large format camera and 500mm lens rock solid - 6kg or so), yet many tripod-mounted shots with my OM 250mm f/2.0 are blurred by camera shake.
On the other hand, I can hand-hold either this lens, or any other smaller one, on an OM body with surprisingly slow shutter speeds and get shake-free results. For example, this was hand-held at 1/4s:
(OM-2n, 24mm at f/2.0, 8x10 darkroom hand print)
An odd (but lovely, nevertheless!) system, the OM system.
bizarre and anti-intuitive, thanks for the information. Back in the day, and I had a pre MD OM1, OM1s got a reputation for lens mount/film plane inaccuracies too. I stil love my OM1 though... it was a brilliant system.
nikku
Well-known
This has been my experience as well. I think OMs are best used handheld.
dtcls100
Well-known
While the vibration cited in the Gary Reese tests could theoretically explain why a given lens tested on his OM-1 performed less well than his OM-4, another equally plausible explanation is that the tolerances of his OM-1 may be a bit off. It is important to remember that all cameras and lenses -- even of the same model -- are subject to manufacturing tolerances and that the interaction between the tolerances of a given camera and a given lens can have a significant effect on observed performance. For example if a camera is off +0.5 and a lens is off -0.5 (each of which theoretically being within manufacturing tolerance), the deviations cancel each other out and their combined tolerance would be spot on at 0. However, if that same -0.5 lens is mounted on a body that is also off -0.5, the combined deviation from optimum would be doubled at +1.0 (possibly being outside of manufacturing tolerance for any given lens or body alone).
The possibility that Gary Reese's OM-1 is out of spec is underscored by a couple of his tests where he tests a given lens on more than one OM-1. I recall that in most of those tests, the lenses performed noticeably better on one OM-1 than the other.
This is why I place very little stock in published lens tests as they typically test only one (or at most two) given samples of a lens on one or two cameras. Also, it seems unlikely that Olympus and Maitani overlooked the OM-1 aperture vibration issue during the OM-1's five year development process, especially given that one of the OM-1's stated major design objectives of the camera were to reduce camera vibration to obtain sharper pictures.
People may not like to admit it, but the multiple variables affecting photographic performance make it very difficult or impossible to conclusively attribute great/good/fair/poor performance on any one factor.
dtcls100
Well-known
The aforementioned Gary Reese lens tests illustrates the disastrous effect this has on image quality taken with certain lenses on tripod - regardless of mirror lockup.
The effect is substantial, and often makes OM cameras much better hand-held (with "wet" vibration absorption by a human being) than on a tripod. I use a giant top-of-the-line Gitzo Tele Studex Carbon Fibre tripod (which easily holds my 4x5in large format camera and 500mm lens rock solid - 6kg or so), yet many tripod-mounted shots with my OM 250mm f/2.0 are blurred by camera shake.
On the other hand, I can hand-hold either this lens, or any other smaller one, on an OM body with surprisingly slow shutter speeds and get shake-free results. For example, this was hand-held at 1/4s:
(OM-2n, 24mm at f/2.0, 8x10 darkroom hand print)
With all due respect, this sort of anecdotal assertion really doesn't mean very much unless you have conducted controlled tests using the same body, lens, subject matter, and controlled environment, with tripod use being the only variable. Unless you have done so and can show us examples, the anecdote really can't be taken as true, given the host of variables that affect photographic performance as referred to in my earlier post.
ferider
Veteran
This is just a shame-less plug for the two Zuikos (28/2 and 50/1.8 MIJ) that I put in the classifieds today.
nikku
Well-known
This is just a shame-less plug for the two Zuikos (28/2 and 50/1.8 MIJ) that I put in the classifieds today.
That sold at lightning speed!
philosomatographer
Well-known
I am not in the business of performing lens tests, it's much more fun to take photographs that I actually want to print in the darkroom (who wants to spend time printing brick walls?)
I believe that all messages on an internet forum can only ever be interpreted as anecdotal, since none of us know who the others really are, nor can we easily "prove" anything without an amount of effort that few are willing to indulge in.
As has been said earlier, there are far too many variables to take as "fact" even concerted lens testing efforts such as Gary Reese's OM lens test, so I was simply sharing my experience as an enthusiastic OM user.
The fact of that matter is, that I am often disappointed by tripod-based work done on my OMs, and I have used numerous tripods, culminating in the biggest and most expensive tripod in the Gitzo range (no small investment).
With certain shutter speeds, I am continually disappointed with camera shake with OM telephoto shots, where even my Mamiya RB67 6x7cm SLR and its giant mirror fare better without mirror lockup.
On the other hand, I find the OMs (especially the OM-3Ti) are great for hand-held work. My 3Ti is less silent, and sounds "harsher" than the buttery smooth OM-1 (of which I have two, so I can "generalise" a bit) but it has substantially less actual kinetic shock, i.e. I can consistently hand-hold it to slower shutter speeds.
Anecdotal? Certainly. But I have built up a history of such anecdotes based on a couple of years of actual usage, and I am simply sharing them here.
YMMV.
JayGannon
Well-known
And there I was thinking cameras were for taking pictures.
philosomatographer
Well-known
WOW, is it true, here lurks an OM3Ti owner? and they say a chicken with lips is rare
Indeed - I am fortunate enough to use one. I had issues with it when I first got it (the mirror never fully cleared before the shutter opened, leaving a dark corner to all images) but after having it repaired (a bent component straightened) it's a pretty darn fine camera.
I wish it was as smooth / quiet as my OM-1n (e.g. the film rewind on the OM-1 is much, much nicer), but in all other respects, it's wonderful to use. It never leaves my side now.
Many a time I have wanted to switch to rangefinder-land, but the OM-3Ti, plus my promise to myself of "only one 35mm system" keeps me sane
philosomatographer
Well-known
Oh, by no means did I mean a "problem". The OM-3Ti is truly a masterpiece, it thrills me to this day. Unique in all the world of cameras. Just today, I finally received and installed a 2-4 (lumi-micron matte without split prism) focus screen, and the viewfinder is simply second to none. It presents a large, smooth, three-dimensional portal within which to realise one's compositional dreams.
I find this different to large-format composition, where one can in a timely and contemplative manner study the image on the ground glass, bit by bit. With a 3Ti fitted with a 2-4 screen, one is simply "one" with this world in a manner which no other SLR (or rangefinder) has presented me with.
With a co-incident rangefinder, you are "one" with the world, the reality outside the camera. It disappears. With every other SLR viewfinder I've used (even the OM-1), you are removed from the real world, and have to concentrate on focusing. With the 3Ti + 2-4 screen, the camera yet again disappears, I feel part - not of the real world out there - but with the projected image, in an uncannily natural way.
An extraordinary accomplishment by the Olympus design team - skills long forgotten when taking into account the mediocre re-hashes they are releasing now (e.g. E-5 DSLR).
But I digress. What I meant was, simply in perspective:
- Leica M3 = ultra smooth perfection
- Olympus OM-1n = very smooth
- Olympus OM-3Ti = "different" - i.e. rewind feel, and mirror action (because of the double mirror) not as smooth. A whole lot more goes on when you release the shutter.
The 3Ti's smooth, weighted shutter release button makes up for it though. I am sure it contributes to the ability to hand-hold it to slower-than-OM-1 shutter speeds.
reiki_
Well-known
Anyone here ever looked at his OM in the mirror and got freaked out how weird and awesome they look?
