On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 06:14:14PM +1000, Frank Ernens wrote:
> Tom Trottier wrote
>
> > Perhaps we Oly users shouldn't be so sanguine about the quality of
> > our lenses... [data from photodo]
>
> There are some other anomalies in the tests there:
>. Elsewhere in the site
> you will find some comments on large v. small formats that
> no-one much agrees with. Caveat surfor.
No I very agree with the film format comparison at:
http://www.photodo.com/art/articles.shtml#
It is not surprising that in diffraction limited! photograpy there is not
too much advatage of the large film format, because sharpness is
limited by diffraction. - What a message! = ;-).
But keep in mid that this statement is only valid with a very sharp b&w-film.
The tests with the older Tri-X film shows the superiority of large
film formats.
This mean`s for Color Photograpy: the large format will
be better. Because even Fuji-Velvia is at high resolution (100l/mm)
inferior to the tested Tri-X.
So there is nothing wich clashes to my experience in the statements.
>
> Testing one new sample of a lens doesn't tell you anything
> about sample variation or whether the lens wears out quickly
> and turns into a dog after a few months.
Yes that is the real problem of most (all?) published lens tests.
Frieder Faig
< 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 >
|