bytesmiths

Besides @John Seaman's excellent answer, another thing to consider is what is called "reciprocity failure."

That is the tendency for film to either over- or under-expose with extremely short or extremely long exposures.

You say "the photo appears as if correctly exposed under the midday sun," so you probably are not experiencing reciprocity failure with that particular film. But be aware that other films may behave differently under extremely long exposures… the OM-2n can go well beyond 120 seconds, which is one of the reasons I got one in 1977!

Here is an example of reciprocity failure with a very long exposure. This is probably what you were hoping for! But it was under-exposed without my trying to make it that way.

KEH has one in EX condition for $399…

Fast forward fourteen years, and EX condition still fetches good money, but I'm a huge fan of KEH "UGly" rating. I bought one in March (2022) for $255.64. It arrived in a plastic bag, with no caps nor case, and some rather severe brassing on one 3mm section of the aperture ring. I have plenty of spare caps! I can live with that.

why use a manual focus lens on a digital camera… now available in ED Zuiko, like the fine 50mm F2

I have both.

The Zuiko Digital 50/2 is outstanding optically, but it is "focus by wire." The film Zuiko is not, of course.

Today, I reached for the ZD to put on my neo OM-1, and it didn't focus. At all. No AF nor MF. On two different adapters, and two different bodies (E-M1 Mark II being my backup.) DoF preview still works, so it isn't electronic communication with the lens. My guess is it's the focusing motor.

So, I picked up the trusty OM 50/2 Macro and took a picture of it to send to Olympus to see if I can get it repaired. My guess is not… I think they've formally "sunset" all 4/3rds lenses.

So, my alternative is to scour the Earth for someone who can repair it, get one of similar age and dubious quality on evilBay, or use my OM 50/2 Macro, which any camera technician with a decent tool set can overhaul and refurbish, for longer than I'm going to be around.

So there's good reason to invest in a "forever" lens, versus one that you might not be able to get electronic parts for tomorrow.

The PB-4 offers shift and swing when mounted normally, rise and tilt when flopped on its side… It will not focus a short lens to infinity… there are very few short lenses with the coverage needed to take advantage of the Spiratone/Hama's movements.

Sorry for reviving a zombie thread, but I wanted to note that the Olympus OM Zuiko 135mm ƒ/4.5 Macro was designed for a prototype tilt-shift bellows that was never marketed, and has a huge image circle. I use it often on the Nikon PB-4, upon which it does focus to infinity.

To be fair, I'm not sure what Dan considers a "short" lens; probably not 135mm.

Just in case anyone winds up here from a search engine, like I did…

Sorry to revive a zombie thread, but I am in the process of making some of these filter holders. Please PM me if you'd like one or more.

To dispel some of the misinformation here:

• standard 46mm filters will not work! The olympus filter that comes in the holder is slightly smaller, and has a different thread pitch, and is also way thinner than any filter available on the market.
  
• the holder is very different from the Nikon 300/2.8 holder. I bought one in the hope that it would work, but it is much thicker and has a different latch.
  
• as @skip_williams mentions, none of these lenses were ever produced in anything but the Olympus OM mount, although they work brilliantly with modern mirrorless cameras and an adapter.
  

The holders I am making will have a standard 46mm x 0.75 thread, but because of the narrow slot, it will still not take the standard filters, none of which are 2.5mm thick or less. Rather, you will be able to disassemble your favourite 46mm filter, pop the glass element out, put it in my filter holder, then screw in the retaining ring.

I am also working on a design for a rotating element filter holder that will at least work with a circular polarizer, graduated filter, or any other rotating filter that does not depend on two elements that rotate independently.

Here's a shot from the 350/2.8 with the OM 1.4X-A teleconverter, for an effective 500/4, on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. This lens also works wonderfully with the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra, yielding an effective 250/2.

If the Zuikos were only just a wee cheaper, sigh.

Do what It takes. Second mortgage. Sell your children into slavery. Pimp your wife. Get the Zuiko! You won't be disappointed.

Every time I buy a third-party lens, I wished I'd bought the equivalent Zuiko, instead. So now, the only non-Zuikos I have are things Olympus doesn't make.

(Yea, I know: old thread, discovered while looking for Zuiko ultra-wides.)

Old stuff, replying to which, I am certain to be beat-up by self-appointed "old thread police" who don't have a life other than telling people who want to learn something that they are "foolish."

Here is the pinout for Speedotron Blacklinke plugs (specifically, a 102):

A: (thin white wire) trigger pulse

B: (heavy black wire) flash tube anode (WARNING: 900+ VOLTS!)

C: (thin brown wire) fan hot wire (WARNING: 120 VAC!)

D: (thin yellow wire) model lamp (WARNING: 120 VAC!)

E: (thin blue wire) fan/model common (WARNING: 120 VAC!)

F: (heavy red wire) flash tube cathode (WARNING: 900+ VOLTS!)

G: not connected

H: not connected

I: (heavy green wire) chassis ground, trigger return

While I'm at it, here is the Brown Line pinout (specifically, a M11):

A: (heavy red wire) flash tube cathode (WARNING: 600+ VOLTS!)

B: (thin white wire) modeling lamp (WARNING: 120 VAC!)

C: (thin brown wire) modeling lamp (WARNING: 102 VAC!)

D: (heavy black wire) flash tube anode (WARNING: 600+ VOLTS!)

E: (thin green wire) trigger pulse

To repeat what others have mentioned: THE ENERGY AVAILABLE AT THESE PINS ON THE PACK CAN KILL YOU! EVEN WITH THE PACK TURNED OFF AND UNPLUGGED!

If a strobe head is unplugged, it should not be dangerous at all, unless you whack one of the old-posting-police up the side of the head with it. There is a small (0.33 µF) cap in there that can give you a poke, but it cannot hold life-theatening energy.

The original poster wanted to re-wire heads, which is not particularly dangerous, despite protestations from the fear-mongers. Here's some tips for re-wiring heads:

1. NEVER, EVER work on a head that is plugged into a pack!
   
2. Keep your solder joints smooth and round. "Pointy bits" can create discharge paths.
   
3. No smoking within 24 hours; no alcohol within 50 feet. :-)
   
4. Should be obvious, but don't work in explosive vapours. Tell your wife she has to apply toenail polish somewhere else.
   
5. When you plug in your re-wired head for the first time, make sure the pack has been unplugged for at least 24 hours. Wear safety goggles, and turn your head away. Repeat these precautions when powering the pack on. You're not likely to have an explosion, but should there be arcing, you don't want to be looking at it.
   
6. Needless to say, mis-wiring can damage or destroy your head, pack, or both.
   
7. If you aren't comfortable and experienced with electricity, pick an easier "first project." :-)
   

Happy hacking!

Lon, with all due respect, if you are qualified to construct your own flash heads I would think that it would be a no-brainer for you to determine this information on your own and not have to ask here. <p>

Sorry, but I don't think we at PN should be aiding and abetting your foolish endeavor.

I find the comments here derogatory and demeaning. If you know something Lon doesn't know, why not just explain it, instead of calling it a "foolish endeavor" or "in over your head." (The latter from someone who had "never seen a Blackline head.")

Notice that Lon didn't participate much longer. Too bad. Y'all might have learned something from him. Perhaps he was an electrical engineer or a ham radio operator. (Hams routinely work with much higher voltages and currents than EEs do.)

I'm in the process of re-wiring a different manufacturer's ring light to a Blackline connector, and was seeking helpful information. I was intending to share what I learned here — along with certain DANGER! THIS CAN KILL YOU! caveats. But I don't think I will do that, now.

(Please note: I am both an electrical engineer and a ham radio operator. I've built kilowatt linear amplifiers that had 1,350 volts on the plate at well over an amp. But you'd never have known that if I had just asked for a pinout, and then been shouted down.)

<p>Looking for a Colorgetter Falcon? I have one (plus a parts machine) with an extra drum, mounting station, and some supplies, offered for <strong>$500.</strong><br>

This is near Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia. I really don't want to ship it!<br>

I also have collected some good info (including factory service manual) on line:<br>

http://www.Bytesmiths.com/ColorGetter</p>

<p><a href="http://www.Bytesmiths.com/OM_Tele">Here</a> is a comparison of a bunch

of OM-mount telephoto lenses used on an E-300.</p>

<p>The "pick of the litter:" the <b>Zuiko 600/6.5,</b> followed by the <b>Zuiko 500/8

mirror</b> and the <b>Zuiko 300/4.5.</b> These are available from $300 to about $800

or so, which is a bargain if you're willing to manually focus!</p>

I can confirm that it only has "slow" USB.

I was disappointed at first, but now find that I rarely plug it in -- I just swap cards. My

portable has a PCMCIA --> CompactFlash reader for the road, and I have a FireWire

CompactFlash reader for the G5 dual at home. Either one makes for AMAZINGLY FAST

downloads!

All told, I love this camera, but I love the lenses more! The 7-14mm is amazing; likewise

the 50mm macro. I also have the 11-22mm, but don't use it much. And with an adaptor, it

takes lots of readily available OM lenses. If you can afford it, skip the "kit" lenses.

I've been waiting a long time for ANYONE to come out with a really fine ultra-wide digital. I

bought the E-300 mainly to go with the 7-14!

My impression is that stock is a dog-eat-dog field. If you're selling general stock, so is

everyone else! I think the only stock photographers in the black are those who specialize on

niche markets, and who market themselves well.

Because there are a LOT of people out there who are willing to sell their stock photos at a

loss so they can justify deducting the equipment. :-(

It has to do with the size of the sensor. Diffraction limits sharpness at smaller apertures,

but in inverse proportion to the size of the recording medium.

My 4x5 lenses go to f90!

DOF is controlled by 1) aperture, and 2) reproduction ratio. If you make an 8x10 print

from 35mm film or from a tiny digital sensor at the same aperture and same reproduction

ratio, they will have the same DOF. Therefore, digital cameras have less DOF when

displaying the same information at the same size at the smallest available aperture.

You *could* make a digicam go to f22 or smaller, but it would get fuzzy because of

diffraction.

All cameras for decades have had the shutter release convenient to the right hand only.

How did you use those cameras? Did you hold it strictly with the left hand, and reach out

with your right to push the shutter release?

I'm sorry for not being more sympathetic, but I suggest you simply learn to conform -- as

lefties must do in so many things. What do you do in your car, reach over and shift with

your left hand? (Move to England! :-)

Also what I suggest to my students is that they use their left hand as a cradle, not as a

grip. Make your left hand a flat platform, upon which you place the camera. The fingers of

the left hand then conveniently reach the zoom and focus on the lens. This is how I use my

E300, and all other cameras I own.

Don't feel too bad -- right-handed people are normally left-eyed, yet the camera makers

make it difficult or impossible to use your left eye. Also, the eye preference in most people

is minor, compared to handedness.

Good luck!

$100-$300 is unrealistic for even a USED DSLR of 5-10Mpx. For $100, you can get a

1.4Mpx Olympus D-600L, which was "the camera" of its day, but no more than a toy by

today's standards. It suffers from no manual mode and relatively long shutter lag, but

otherwise, takes wonderful pictures. I still use mine from time to time, purchased in 1998

for $1600! It is a true DSLR, but has a fixed lens.

Slightly above your price range would be other USED fixed-lens DSLRs from Olympus, like

the C-2500 or E-20. Olympus is about the only maker of low-cost, fixed-lens DSLRs. If

you insist on changeable lenses, for under a grand, you can get the 8Mpx Olympus E-300

plus a fair quality "kit" lens, new.

In your price range, you might be interested in pseudo-DSLRs that have an electronic

viewfinder. Personally, I can't stand them, but they are cheaper than true DSLRs. (A true

DSLR has an optical light path through the actual picture-taking lens through the

viewfinder.)

I'm not purposely slighting other makers, but am most familiar with Olympus.

I really like my E-300. It has tons of detail. I skipped the kit lenses, took out a second

mortgage, and bought the 7-14 zoom. What a marvelous lens! It took me an hour or so to

get used to it, but now people look at my shots and go WOW! It's great for candid group

shots, using the "grab shot" technique -- I just hold it up in the air, point it toward the center

of action, click, and it looks like you're standing on a ladder or suspended over the crowd.<div></div>

Keep in mind that large sensors will ALWAYS cost more than small sensors, by roughly the

square of the difference in size. This is simply a matter of manufacturing yield, and has

been true from the first planar transistor.

It is more likely that small sensor performance will increase than large sensor relative price

will decrease.

Of course, if the general decrease in price is enough, large sensors will win -- who cares

about the difference in price between a $2 or $4 sensor? But for now, it's more like the

difference between $200 and $400.

<p>First, a definition: <i>"resolution" IS "dpi".</i> Resolution is how closely you can

discriminate between two things -- in other words, how close two pixels are together.

<p>I think the term you're shooting for is <i>dimensions,</i> which everyone (especially

marketing people, but not including graphics professionals) confuses with resolution.

<p>Bottom line is that resolution (or DPI) is irrelevant for your stored images. In effect,

digital images are "resolutionless" until they are output in some physical medium.

<p>But if you really mean "dimensions", I say that if you don't have a fixed purpose for an

image, save as many pixels as your camera gave you. If you *do* have a fixed purpose,

then that will determine the dimensions. For example, pictures for embedding in a web

page don't need to be more than a few hundred pixels across, email: 600 or so, snapshot

photos: 1800 or so, fine art photos: as many as you can get!

Well, it doesn't have Scheimpflug movements, but the E Zuiko 7-14 sure gives a wide view!

I'm really quite taken with it for interior photography.

Thanks! I have this lens, and am encouraged to try it on my E-300.

It would be nicer to have an E-Adaptall mount, though. I don't care for multiple bits of glue.

BTW: I have had what seem to be excellent results with the Zuiko 90/2 macro, as well. I want

to do formal testing of all 21 prime Zuikos that I have, and will post results when I do.

I'm rather fond of Extensis Portfolio ($199), but then I have 12,000 images in my imagebase.

If you don't need something infinitely expandable, there are cheaper alternatives.

What sort of strobe are you triggering? I found a radio strobe on eBay BIN for under $30.

Sure, it lacks the features found on $300 radio triggers, but it works just as good as a PC

cord! (Better, in fact, since you aren't tethered.)

I find the E-300 to have adequate viewing brightness, even with an f4 lens.

But to me, the REAL reason to go Olympus is the glass. Skip the "kit" lenses and go with

one of their higher-end ones. I hear the 14-54/2.8-3.5 is lovely.

I'm a wide/macro freak, so I got the 11-22 and the 50/2 macro. The latter also makes a

decent portrait lens, although you'll probably want to soften those crows feet in

Photoshop, the lens is so sharp!

I also got the 7-14/4. This is simply an awesome lens. No one else has anything like it.

Oly has just announced a full-frame fisheye (great for spinners) and the world's first and

only constant f2 zooms.

So the N/C crowd will jump in and tout how many lenses there are for their mounts. If a

lens is great, you only need one! (Reminds me of the Windows-Mac debates: just how

many word processors do you need, anyway? :-)

The next Oly body is rumored to have in-camera image stabilization. What a great way to

protect your lens investment, rather than have to go out and buy new lenses to get IS!

"Of course, you could buy a standard plate and have a machinist simply mill it down to

clear the battery/card compartment door..."

If you're a woodworker, consider just making one! No, not from wood -- carbide-tipped

woodworking tools work well on aluminum as well!

I now make all my quick release plates. It seems each camera has its own special needs. I

even sold one on eBay for $20, after I sold the body it had been on!

It's great to have one that fits your camera perfectly. For example, I put anti-rotation pins

in to mate with the extra holes in camera bodies. I tap them and put in a set screw, so

there's no chance a heavy lens will twist the plate.

Take extra care regarding kick-back and eye protection -- what might be a sliver with

wood could be a bullet with aluminum. But you don't need special equipment -- a table

saw and drill press is all you need to work aluminum.

Here's an example I did last year...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=2491361

If you've got an open mind, consider... "none of the above!"

There have been recommendations for Pentax and Konica/Minolta. I think you should take

a long hard look at the Olympus E-300.

You can get adaptors for either Nikon or Canon (or Pentax or Konica/Minolta) lenses, but

you also have access to all the lovely new 4/3rds glass, including the world's first f2.0

zooms, a stellar macro, and the widest zoom available for digital SLRs.

For the asking, Olympus will also send you a free Olympus OM adaptor, so you can use

lots of world class Zuiko OM glass.

If you like wide and/or macro, or if you don't feel the need to follow the crowd, Olympus

has a lot more to offer than the "tweedle dee, tweedle dum" Big Two market leaders.

But if you don't feel secure breaking out and going with a niche player, better stick to the

boring market leaders.

Panasonic will be introducing new bodies next year, rumored to include in-body image

stabilization. Imagine a cheap 500mm mirror lens instantly being an IS lens!

"When the trigger button is hit the electronics should be able to capture whatever light-

image was on the sensor at that time - much like many pro- sumer camera operate. Unlike

film, sensors isn't affected by "over- exposure" syndrome."

I don't think this is true. The devices commonly in use accumulate electrons during the

exposure. Cheaper (as you pointed out, "pro-sumer") cameras use chips that are

optimized for video, and expect periodic "flushing". Thes have more noise and other

problems, compared to sensors that are designed for electron accumulation.

So it seems a shutter is necessary. My pet peeve is that it continues to be a focal-plane

shutter! The Olympus E-20 has an in-lens leaf shutter, with an incredible flash sync speed.

Such a shutter could be integrated with the diaphragm, which must be located at the nodal

point to avoid vignetting. Then you'd view wide-open, perhaps with a second focal-plane

shutter open for an EFV (ugh, hate those) or rear screen. When you push the button, the

shutter closes, the electronics are flushed, the shutter opens to the working aperture for

the length of the exposure, then closes again, then the sensor data is clocked out. The

secondary focal-plane shutter is closed during lens changes.