"John A. Lind" wrote:
>
> I will second C.H. Ling's observation about manufacturing variation and
> tooling wear. I know it all too well with what I do professionally in
> electronics manufacturing.
>
Me too, I have been in electronics manufacturing for 17 years. The
experience may not apply to optical manufacturing, but if my memory
serve, I didn't found any different between the size of front and rear
element of 5xx and 1,1xx. they also weight the same. So I guess they
have the same optical construction.
> .........
> camera bodies. There _will_ be some variation in focusing accuracy (flange
> to film plane distance versus flange to mirror to focus screen distance)
> which _will_ confound lens performance. What makes Gary Reese's data
> valuable is generally consistent use of the same set of camera bodies in
> his testing . . . which is why I'm glad he has posted which body was used
> for each test.
Yes, it is possible, with over fifteen camera bodies I once own/still
own. I found three have mirror off position, one Nikon FA, one OM2n
and one OM4. They off very slightly, but significant for 50/1.4, 100/2
and 200/4 wide open (also for the Nikon 105/2.5 I have tested).
C.H.Ling
< 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 >
|