OM users: how bad are the diaphragm vibrations?

[msbarnes]

My intention is to use my OM1 for tripod work. I read that a big vibration offender for OM's is the aperture stop-down mechanism which initiates right before the shutter goes off, regardless if MLU is used.

Anyone notice this to be a problem? Well, i guess it depends on my demands..

I'm interested mostly in 28mm-100mm focal lengths and the longest shutter speed would probably be 1/8s. This is for available light portraits, so not that high of a magnification.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I shot with one for about 15 years and never even noticed this "issue". The prime lenses are tiny do how much could it be? The only issue is that the foam needs to be changed at come point....mirror damper, prism, film door.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

The one filed of photography where vibration matters is astronomy. AFAIK in its time the OM1 had been the camera of choice for this kind of thing.

 

[MattKing]

The one filed of photography where vibration matters is astronomy. AFAIK in its time the OM1 had been the camera of choice for this kind of thing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the lens apertures are used in that field.

 

[darinwc]

I've never heard of complaints about the OM aperture or shutter vibrations. OM's are some of the best in this catagory.

 

[BMbikerider]

The apertures of lenses for the OM series of cameras all seem to operate in the opposite way to say Nikon, Pentax or Minolta in that when the shutter is released the apperture pin moves away from the apperture mechanism which is them closed by a spring. With the others the pin moves against the aperture pin so forcing the lens to close down.

I would have thought that the OM method would give rise to less vibration than the others. For what it's worth, I never had a problem with OM cameras and vibration anyway. What I did find though was the diaphragms of OM lenses were more prone to becoming 'lazy' and slow to close

 

[Chris Nielsen]

I have seen this many times on the net. Apparently the way to solve this problem is to use a body with aperture pre-fire. I know my OM4 does this on self timer mode, it fires the aperture at the start of the time so any vibration has gone by the time the shutter fires.

 

[AgX]

Actually I don't understand the problem at all:

If one uses a camera on tripod there is usually time enough to operate a camera fully manual (metering, time and aperture setting).
As the OM-1 has the feature of closing down the diaphragm independant of releasing the shutter, via the DOF-control knob at the lens, employing this should avoid any vibration issue caused by the diaphragm proper.
There still might be other sources of vibration though.

 

[Dali]

msbarnes wrote: "Anyone notice this to be a problem?"

1 answer: no. If it were the case, it would mean that all other parameters source of vibration were mastered and even at this point, I wonder if it could be measurable...

 

[pen s]

I'm not sure a problem (if present) with aperture actuation would be in entirely in the lens. The body has the aperture coupling mechanism that is moving very fast. This moving mass could have an effect even if the lens is pre-stopped down. I've shot with OM-1 cameras for years but mostly hand held so I have little experience with tripod use. I have a notion that any problem with resolution at slow shutter speeds would be due to subject motion and not camera vibration.

 

[onepuff]

I have used both the OM-2n and OM-4ti for night photography using available light with exposures of up to 15 minutes and have never had a problem. The OM-1 which has a mirror lock up should theoretically be even better so I can't foresee that you will have any issues.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"Diaphragm vibrations"? Good lord. Is the mirror/shutter silent? That's another one making the rounds.

Where do these questions come from? Is there a room full of obsessive-compulsive worry warts somewhere?

 

[mopar_guy]

I remember reading a post such as this some time ago online. I think that some people without much knowledge or experience will post nonsense like this on the internet and then other people will find it later and worry about imaginary problems.

 

[ColdEye]

"Diaphragm vibrations"? Good lord. Is the mirror/shutter silent? That's another one making the rounds.

Where do these questions come from? Is there a room full of obsessive-compulsive worry warts somewhere?

I didn't even know there was such a thing. Reminds me of pixel peepers in the digital crowd. OMs are a joy to use, I can handheld it at 1/15th with acceptable results. Your going to use a tripod so 1/8 is no problem.

 

[MattKing]

I believe I have seen references to this before, but it was in the context of extreme macro-photography.

 

[jajong]

Well I think there is something to it. Have a look at Gary Reese's lenstests of Oly lenses (the 100mm 2.8 e.g.); it seems to me that the body used for the test can influence the outcome. You can find the tests at zone-10.com .
Cheers, Jan

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well I think there is something to it. Have a look at Gary Reese's lenstests of Oly lenses (the 100mm 2.8 e.g.); it seems to me that the body used for the test can influence the outcome. You can find the tests at zone-10.com .
Cheers, Jan

Yes, you can find the tests. But are the tests any good? What were the protocols? I routinely take pictures of watch parts as I make them, I know a thing or two about macro- verging on micro- photography of very small things that have to have critically sharp images made of them. On every camera I've used, locking up the mirror closes the diaphragm. If you're trying to take macro photographs without locking up the mirror, of course there will be vibrations and the attendant image degradation. I'd like to see the photographer who can distinguish between mirror and diaphragm vibration.

 

[jajong]

At any rate, with the om-1 you can lift the mirror, but the diaphragm closes when the shutter goes off. The point I tried to make is that in Reese's tests there is a different outcome for the same lens (!) and different bodies. An om-1 was used and an om-2000, which has diaphragm prefire (in the 100mm 2.0 test; me bad).
Cheers, Jan

 

[MikeTime]

"Diaphragm vibrations"? Good lord. Is the mirror/shutter silent? That's another one making the rounds.

Where do these questions come from? Is there a room full of obsessive-compulsive worry warts somewhere?

Yep, there must be. It's next to the room where all the Leica digital M users are.

 

[Allan Swindles]

"Diaphragm vibrations"? Good lord. Is the mirror/shutter silent? That's another one making the rounds.

Where do these questions come from? Is there a room full of obsessive-compulsive worry warts somewhere?

I'm right. The world has gone mad. I use OM - 2,2n and 4Ti bodies with lenses from 28 - 300mm.+1.4 converter. The OM system was introduced to be largely handheld. The last thing I would consider is diaphragm vibration, but if in dought, use a GOOD tripod.

 

[thuggins]

I have shot versions of all four single digit OMs for some 30 years and have never experienced a vibration "problem". I regularly handhold 28mm and 35mm lenses down to 1/8s and get very good results.

 

[KrankyKraut]

My intention is to use my OM1 for tripod work. I read that a big vibration offender for OM's is the aperture stop-down mechanism which initiates right before the shutter goes off, regardless if MLU is used.

Anyone notice this to be a problem?

In a word, no. It's Internet myth.

 

[Yashinoff]

Actually on some cameras this is a real problem. But it is not the diaphragm itself that causes shake, but the mechanism that actuates it. I don't have an OM, but some of my older cameras like the Edixas have a very sharp shutter button "break" when tripping the shutter due to the triggering of the aperture plunger. On the older Edixas you can actually avoid this by slowly depressing the button so that the plunger is triggered before the mirror is released. The jar from releasing the aperture plunger feels sharper to me than the mirror slap, and it is non existent though if one uses an early CZJ lens for instance which blocks the plunger from releasing.