On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:53:23AM -0500, Paul Wallich wrote:
> At 7:09 AM -0500 4/1/02, ClassicVW@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> I do know that manufacturers are 'allowed' to be off by 10 0n their
> claims for both f stop and zoom range. I notice that they always seem
> to be off in the optimistic direction.
<snip>
> Same thing is mostly true for f-stop. 10 0ifference isn't going to
> make or break any of your pictures. In fact, with TTL metering, you
> don't really care what the aperture is (within reason); all you care
> about is that each stop is half the aperture of the previous one.
I agree
> (All this doesn't really excuse camera manufacturers, but it should
> remind us what's important to making good pictures.)
How could a salesman explain to customers why Olymus offers
a 52mm F/1.26 , a 50mm F/1.44 and a 51mm F/1.86?
- Sure to distinguish the different version would be easier than.
see:
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mp-zuiko-tests.txt
The optical formulas for lenses can`t be reversed. So the design of
optical devices is like a serch. The engineer is trying different element
combination untill he finds one wich fit`s the criterias.
First importend is the image quality, second to be close enough
to the desired data. So toleraces are inavoidable.
Are the differences always on the optimistic side? - Hm... competition?
Well acording to L.Hawkins web site, the Zuiko 2/21 could easily
be labeld as a 20mm F/1.8.
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 >
|