>I got my issue yesterday. The article is by Keppler. It tests mainly
>Nikon F5 with and w/o MLU. Results are astoundingly better **with** MLU.
>Sometimes exceeding **two** or even **three** times the resolution of no
>MLU! The OM-1 vs OM-4T results are not quite as eye-opening, but the -1
>with MLU does show up to 43% better resolution. The 'worst' shutter
{MLU = Mirror Lock-Up}
Hmmm! I've always wondered why my old rangefinder pictures (Leica M-2,
later IIIf) are generally better than my old SLR pictures. I had always
attributed it to better lenses, and the superiority of rangefinder
focusing. It may be that the RF's lack of a mirror is significant, too.
And of course, Keppler shows that the OM mirror action, being less clunky
than wonderbricks, degrades the image less (OM content).
--- Peter
/\: ________ __ ========= , , , , , , |' , ,
/ b | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ~|' |
/ b b ,| ,| ,| ,| ,| ,| ' ,| | ,| |__|__|__| |__| | | | |
~' =========
< 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 >
|