Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,410   Online: 1045
      
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 96
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    893
    Needless to say I don't expect to subject my cameras to this but good to know! The R6 score of 88 vs the OM4T score of 87 is a hair better but more importantly which part it did score a point higher on? Anyone know the results for others they may have tested?

  2. #72
    kivis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    215
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    8

    Oh gosh ugly

    Just played with a OM4T. Lots fun but because there is wear and tear on it, I hearby declare it to butt ugly. Looks like when something plastic wears.
    Akiva S.

    Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F, Nikon FE, Leica M3

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero/

    My Blog



  3. #73

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    Even mature and experienced people might show some wear and tear but that doesn't mean they're butt ugly. They might still perform magnificently.

    In the case of photos you can't see the camera looking at the prints
    - Bill Lynch

  4. #74
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,026

    Nikon FE2 vs Olympus OM-4T(i)

    The paint never really bonded well with the titanium top and bottom plates so you see them often with wear. I had a pristine body I got used from a laboratory, which wore to that level in about a year of use. The black models seem to wear a bit better but I like silver bodies (in this case champagne).

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    114
    I've just read that crash test for the first time (I didn't know about it).

    Interesting, but I think the reviewer makes a very common mistake about the lightmeter of the OM cameras, and I would like to know for certain once and for all:

    This is what is said in the crash test about the off the frame metering:

    "the shuttercurtain contains a complex, computer-calculated field of white dots. This field stands for an average exposure value for your subject. The field is measured by the meter of the camera the moment the shuytter flips up, just before the shutter opens. By means of this, the camera meter can adjust to a change in lighting of your subject in the very last instant and thus expose correctly".

    I think this is plain wrong and doesn't do justice to the ingenuity of the lightmeter.

    I always understood that the field of white dots on the shuttercurtain is used by the meter to show you BEFORE the exposure what value it measures, but that it adjusts DURING the exposure by metering directly from the film itself at that moment. So, it does not adjust "in the very last instant", it adjusts really while exposing.

    This explains why, when "shooting" without film, the exposure time is quite a bit longer than indicated by the meter before pressing the shutter (you don't have to measure it: it's obvious; try with 1/8th to 1/2 of a second: you'll notice the difference): in that situation, during the "expsoure", the camera sees a "black hole" (the pressure plate), since there's no film, and hence uses a much longer exposure time than indicated right before pressing the shutter.

    This is also useful when using the Olympus flash: the camera can cut off the flash even DURING exposure. Imagine a lot of photographers making a picture of the same subject, all at the same time, with flash (e.g. newsreporters): the OM will be able to expose correctly, because it will "see" the flashes of the OTHER cameras during exposure and will adjust accordingly while exposing.

    I always understood this the case both with the OM-2 and the OM-4. Considering the time when the OM-2 was made, this was revolutionary (but I think often misunderstood and thus underestimated, and the genius of Maitani should not be underestimated).

    I don't know if there is or has ever been another camera that can do this. I don't think so.

    Stefan.
    Last edited by gliderbee; 01-06-2013 at 05:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,991
    The Oly automatic shutter speed doesn't depend on any meter reading until the mirror goes up. The initial shutter speed is what the meter reads off the dots on the shutter curtain. Only if the shutter speed is longer than the flash sync speed then light measurement is taken off the film. How do you measure off the film for shutter speed say 1/500 as the film never got uncovered completely.

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by kivis View Post
    Just played with a OM4T. Lots fun but because there is wear and tear on it, I hearby declare it to butt ugly. Looks like when something plastic wears.
    Declaring titanium to be like plastic is such a stretch of the imagination that it can only be possible if one was under considerable influence . . .

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    893
    Yoshihisa Maitani was a genius and came up with some fantastic cameras!

    According to the May 1976 Modern Photography review of the OM2, OTF metering works different at 1/60 and above or less than 1/60. At 1/60 and above, it is off the first curtain. Below 1/60 and it is partially off the first curtain and film and will also adjust to the scene's lighting changes. I don't have a review of the OM4 so I am not certain if it continuous to work this way or not.

    BTW, the only other camera that I know of that used OTF metering was the Pentax LX. This took the concept a bit further as it can meter for as long as it takes for a proper exposure or the battery dies - monitoring the scene for lighting changes and adjusting exposure in realtime.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    Even the lowly OM-10 had this technology.
    - Bill Lynch

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Sarile View Post
    Yoshihisa Maitani was a genius and came up with some fantastic cameras!

    According to the May 1976 Modern Photography review of the OM2, OTF metering works different at 1/60 and above or less than 1/60. At 1/60 and above, it is off the first curtain. Below 1/60 and it is partially off the first curtain and film and will also adjust to the scene's lighting changes. I don't have a review of the OM4 so I am not certain if it continuous to work this way or not.

    BTW, the only other camera that I know of that used OTF metering was the Pentax LX. This took the concept a bit further as it can meter for as long as it takes for a proper exposure or the battery dies - monitoring the scene for lighting changes and adjusting exposure in realtime.
    The OM2 and 4 both work that way. The only difference is that the 4 increased the longest autoexposure time (2 minutes on the 2's and 4 minutes onthe 4's, as I recall). This allows the OM's to produce beautiful night exposures with just the push of the shutter button. I've taken shots that range from 15 seconds to several minutes, lit by candles, firelight or starlight and every time they have come out perfectly exposed.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin