>>>>> "George" == ClassicVW <ClassicVW@xxxxxxx> writes:
George> John, While I haven't followed this thread too closely,
George> you're being too hard on C.H., IMO. Many qualities of a
George> lens can be measured scientifically, and for other
George> qualities it's not so easy to do. Yes, contrast can be
George> "measured", but if someone feels there's such a thing as
George> "too much contrast", That's their subjective opinion, and
George> I may or may not agree, but I know what he's trying to
George> convey. You are of the position that everything can be
George> measured and categorized, but it's not that simple in
George> photography, or someone with the highest intelligence who
George> buys the most expensive equipment would automatically turn
George> out the best photographs.
You logic is a bit flawed on this point. In fact, the underlying
implication in questioning the objective differences in lenses is that
one is missing the forest for the trees when they get hung up on
miniscule differences in optics. I know some highly successful
professional photographers and they treat equipment as a necessary
tool of their profession. Optics, bodies, and formats are chosen
based on an objective assesment of the requirements of the situation.
Each works in a different photographic realm and choses different
equipment.
Photography is almost entirely a function of the person behind the
lens, not the lens. The choice of film, lighting, exposure, and
printing all have significantly greater impact on the resultant image
than do miniscule differences between good lenses.
George> You also state that through modern computer codes one can
George> accurately simullate all characteristics of a lens? Maybe
George> one can *attempt* to build a lens with certain
George> characteristics, but there's just too many intangibles,
George> and most would say that "bokeh" is one of them. So is a
George> "3D look". These are not hard and fast computer codes,
George> they're people's subjective opinions on a lens'
George> performance. And I also know what he means when he writes
George> about the "color" of Canon's lenses, and I feel I have
George> enough experience, and many others do also, with Canon,
George> Nikon, Olympus, Leica to *generally* *accurately* describe
George> their characteristics in a blind study, at least more
George> accurately than guessing. You're looking at photography
George> in too much of a numbers crunching way, photography is not
George> a science, it's an art, and no amount of computer science
George> or physics can master that.
The lenses are designed with computer codes and within the limitations
of cost and physics it's possible to design a lens to best approach
any set of criteria. A photographic lens is not that complex as optics
go, certainly the oil immersion confocal objectives we buy are more
demanding (these run up to $15,000).
Again, my point is that the miniscule differences in top lenses are an
insignificant factor in producing photographic art. You have used
logically inconsistent reasoning to claim that I took a position which
I did not.
-John
< 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 >
|