neild

<p>Rumours have it that some cheaper ones are just aluminium (aluminum), whereas others are plated brass. The brass ones would be stronger and lens likely to break when you have a large heavy lens hanging off it.</p>

<p>As to which adapter is made from what material, that I don't know.</p>

<p>So, can the lens be used in a 'zone-focus' method? I've always thought you needed a DOF scale as Andrew mentions, and I see none on the photos I've seen of it (I haven't seen it in real life yet).</p>

<p>I must say that this very nearly seems to be a dream camera for me, based on what I have read of it, although for me it falls short by not having an aperture ring on the lens (OK, I know this would crowd things up and make things larger, which goes against the grain here, but I personally prefer a mechanical f-stop control to one selected by a button on the back - I presume this is how it's done here?). Anyway, I don't think they would change the lens design now even if they read this and agree with me, so perhaps the f-stop ring has gone forever - too bad.</p>

<p>Anyway, despite this (for me, major) set-back, I still am sorely tempted to get one as in most other ways it is a classic camera converted to digital... which is what I want them to do with the OM-1 (or OM-2 - I'm not fussy!). I think maybe Olympus has listened to the people on this one (or maybe it's a coincidence that they've built this kind of thing when I always wanted them to do it!). So, I'll likely get one anyway.</p>

<p>Wow, that F1 sure looks huge by comparison! (mind you, I notice it has a motor drive attached - certainly this will make its 'bum look big'...).</p>

<p><em>"... many design features of the double digit OM's and even the venerable OM4 seem out of his realm"</em></p>

<p>Indeed... although even though some features of the OM-3 and OM-4 were certainly imptrovements, I still prefer the OM-1 and OM-2 overall (including the 'N' variations): they are both masterpieces!</p>

<p>Oskar, my thoughts exactly!<br>

Another thing - no-one has to answer anything; if the question annoys you, move on...</p>

<p>Thanks Patrick - actually, I already have their 80mm T/S combo but am always looking out for a better option.</p>

<p>@ John: Ah, I see - too bad :(</p>

<p>John - interesting thought. I have no 4/3 gear so far but I do have a heap of OM lenses, and if a T/S adapter came out which could fit them onto 4/3 then I might just consider it worthwhile getting into 4/3 after all...</p>

<p>Not sure if the price is a bargain or not, but it is a good lens when in good condition. What I've found in the past is that marks or scratches on the rear element of a lens seem to be more detrimental to overall image quality than marks/scratches on the front element (is there a theoretical basis to this observation, or am I imagining it all? anyone?). As Kelly says, try it out first (it may be fine), but I'd be concerned all the same.</p>

Lindy, the 21/2 is well worth it if you can find a good one. The 18/3.5 is slightly better optically but the bright f/2 of the 21 more than makes up for this IMO.

This camera is much to good to leave in the drawer because of the battery issues, so it's good that you have found a solution!

I don't believe batteries are an issue on 'B' mode (which is supposed to be 100% mechanical as Patrick says)... but then I have never tested this!

As someone who has/uses the adapter, I say it is wonderful and I wouldn't want to do it any other way (and now all my OM bodies take the same batteries!).

The lens mount on each of the cameras you mention are identical, so assuming that the lenses are designed to fit these cameras (ie. assuming that the lenses are Olympus OM mount), they will fit equally well to both cameras.

 

As you state, the OM-2 has an auto function, in addition to manual, whereas the OM-1 is manual only. There is a difference, however, in that the OM-1 is a mechanical camera and as a result it can be used without batteries. The OM-2 is electronic and requires batteries to operate.

 

Hope this helps.

Not sure if I understand completely, but I'll answer the question I think you are asking:

 

Once on your computer, you can move the files out of the folders - all into one folder of your choosing if you like. Don't move them around on the card though. Hope this helps.

Just found this explanation - phew, I thought I was going crazy as it changed from one view to the next for me.

 

By the way, I like what I've seen so far...

Some lenses can focus past infinity. This is because expansion of the lens in the hot sun can change the exact point of infinity focus. With such a lens, you must still focus by eye if using manual focus. Perhaps you could focus with AF then switch to MF - it may lock in place, depending on the lens.

Are these focusing effects reproduced on film?

 

The viewfinder on the OM-4 has an adjustment for diopters, the OM-1 does not (not sure about the OM-40). Could it be that adjusting this could solve the problem?

On a budget, I'd go for a 16mm fisheye (or 8mm if you can get one) and 'defish' it using something like Panotools (free last time I looked). A half-decent 16mm fisheye should be cheaper than a similar quality 17mm rectilinear lens I'd guess.

Yep, I've done this too (5D, macro lens, old prints). I also got myself an old copy stand: 4 legs, and the camera

sits on it facing the floor.

Tough question as their are too many good ones!

 

21/2.0, 16/3.5, 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 135/2.8 are those most often used by me.

Changing perspective requires the use of our legs - zooming a zoom does not change perspective, only cropping of the image.

 

Comments please.

In the 'old' days, cameras came with a 50mm f/1.8 lens as standard - this was the 'kit' lens of the time. Back then, people always wanted another lens because the 50/1.8 was 'just' a kit lens. Now, you want a 50/1.8 because it is not a kit lens... psychology at work I think (a form of 'grass is greener'?).

 

By all means, buy whatever your heart desires - you won't be happy until you do (but your photography may not improve as much as you expect when you buy it!).

I've seen the same thing with my old 10D, and I agree about the suggestion of

reducing exposure: the light meter takes in all colours at once to give its

estimate, but it doesn't realise that the red channel is blown out. I guess once

you determine the number of stops to reduce the exposure by, then this will work

for most/all other flowers. Just do some tests.

<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/macrozuikoB.htm"><b>They</b></a> do exist...