> First it is an anecdote, then I have heard rumors, that the sharpness of
> lenses for smaller formats can be greater in the area of interest than in
> greater format lenses, which have to cover the greater format.
"If you compare two lenses, equal in all respects but the size [focal
length], and say one is 50mm and the other 38, you can easily understand
how their confusion circles must be one the 38/50 of the other."
The first comment is generally true. The latter is incorrect.
About a year ago, Pop Photo did a 35mm versus 120 shootout. It turned
out that 35mm lens are generally sharper than 120-format lenses. 35mm
negatives require higher magnification, so the lenses must be more
highly corrected.
There is no law of nature which requires this. However, extra correction
usually requires additional elements, which would add to the mass and
bulk of already-large lenses.
Furthermore, within a given format, shorter focal-length lenses _do not_
have smaller circles of confusion, since the images from such lenses are
_not_ enlarged more than images from longer lenses.
As to the OM-5... I'll believe it when I see it. I can't believe it's a
wholly manual camera, because most photographers want switchable auto
exposure. And if it _does_ have auto exposure, then it would be the
OM-6.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|