Clyde,
First of thanks for the very informative URL on Auto-Focus. Interesting
reading....but in the MO-1 vs. OM4Ti comparison Keppler seems to gloss over
the fact that mirror and aperture/ prefire are available on the OM4Ti using
the self-timer!!
Just to further clarify, in the Kodachrome 25 tests I did I first compared
the Zuiko 16/3.5 against the Nikkor AIS 16/2.8. The Nikkor was soft at the
edges at f/2.8 and f/8. The Zuiko had good/very good performance to the
edges at f/3.5 and very/good to excellent at f/8. I got rid of that Nikkor.
When I did the same comparison now with the AF NIkkor 16mm f/2.8 D I
manually focused it on an F3 body...infact using the DG 2 magnifier just to
make sure the focus was exact. The lenses were comparable at f/8, but at
full aperture the Zuiko was still substantially sharper at the edges. I've
never had an opportunity to test the older 16mm f/3.5 Nikkor against my
16mm Zuiko.
At 09:21 AM 12/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Yes, this is the older 16/3.5 that I was comparing. It's amazing
>>that a company would go backward in their design. Maybe it was much
>>more economical to produce, indicating that bean counters run many
>>companies.
>
>The problem likely has less to do with optics and more to do with the
>major drawbacks of autofocus . See the following page for details:
>
>http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/af.html
>
>
>< 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 >
>
Kurt Hurley IDS 2000 Product Marketing Manager
Schlumberger T&T - Diagnostic Systems
1601 Technology Drive San Jose CA 95110
email khurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PH 408-437-5156 FAX 408-437-9031 PG 408-699-4587
< 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 >
|