>When this was originally posted, I assumed Doris Fang was joking. To
>quote Douglas Adams: "This is, of course, impossible."
>
>A human hair is less than .01" in diameter. Suppose a rangefinder can
>focus down to 3'. A resolution of .01" at 3' is better than one part in
>a thousand!
>
>Even assuming you could turn the focusing ring such a tiny amount
>without backlash, could you actually see a 0.1hift of the double
>image in the rangefinder? I really, Really, REALLY doubt it.
Oh? Haven extensive experience with the old Yashica GSN and now with a
Mamiya Super-23, I'd have to say that the human hair resolution isn't that
far out from reality. When a subject is in critical focus with a
rangefinder it has a sharpness or snap in the viewfinder that is unequalled
in an SLR. I don't think the internals of the camera/lens are that
accurate, though.
As far as ease of focusing in 950f situations, though, I'll take an SLR
anyday.
Ken
Kenneth E. Norton
Image66 Photography
image66@xxxxxxx
(515) 791-2306
< 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 >
|