On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:17:26AM -0500, Dirk Wright wrote:
> >Apologies. As I guessed, it was close but no cigar. The correct address is:
> >
> >http://www.mawddwy.freeserve.co.uk/50mmtest.htm
My original post to list about the article is here:
http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1999/msg12315.html
"
| Top placing goes to Olympus OM3Ti for providing quite simply the best
| overall set of slides on show. Price and specification aside, the camera
| produced images as good as, if not consistently better than the other
| cameras - despite the fact that its original design may be a little long in
| the tooth."
| Simon E.
>
> I find it very surprising that the OM3 would have been the best, based on the
> lens tests. The 50/1.8 isn't as good as the Planar or the Summilux, based on
> the tests. The Zuiko only achieves 120 l/mm vs. 130 l/mm for both the others
> in the high contrast tests. Likewise for the low contrast tests, the other
> lenses achieve 90 l/mm at larger apertures than the Zuiko. Too bad they
> didn't use the 50/1.2.
> --
> Be Seeing You.
> Dirk Wright
>
WOW, what a camera, even with the worst lens it produced the best slides!
I always kew, 30'ty years of camera advertisment can`t fail:
It IS the camera which is crucial for the picture quality, neither the lens,
nor the
film or even the photographer. Now it`s evident!
<g>
<GG>
<GGGGGGGGG>
----o--------snipp ----------o------------
some time later....
----o--------snipp ----------o------------
To be more serious: O.k. the resolution of the others is about 10% better than
our underrated 1.8/50. But I think 130 l/mm vs. 120 l/mm is just academic.
24 Mpix. equivalent vs. 29 Mpix is not the quality difference you usually
notice.
MTF comparisons are done between 5..40 l/mm, for d.o.f. calculations usually
33...40 l/mm are used.
Just another part of the picture...
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 >
|