Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>OK, then. You have your experience done, while I only have questions.
>
>Perhaps I thought (as a wise and respected member of this list clearly told
>me offlist) that Zuikos were better than they really are,
>
OM Zuikos ranged from really great to pretty good. Even the ones that
look pretty weak from a current perspective, were at least pretty good
at the time they were made.
>and this small question on accuracy / consistency (call it T stops / F stops)
>could be the
>measure of their charm and defects.
>
>What I must admit I had forgotten, in my own moment either of boredom or
>temporary madness, is that idealization (as it is understood in my
>profession) must be regarded as a primitive defense mechanism closely
>related to paranoid ideation.
>
How nice you found expression in a form so meaningful to you what I was
trying to espress in so many more words and from a different viewpoint.
In semi-current American parlance, ti might be something like "It's too
messy and doesn't make any real difference in doing the job. Get over it!"
>So, Walt, thanks for making me remember a golden rule I seldom forget
>watching on others. It's no longer going to keep me up nights worrying about
>it.
>
Lovely! I find mulling over abstruse subjects an easy way to drift off
to sleep and opto-photographic subjects and specualtons are one type I
sometimes use. I believe I've fallen asleep musing about these and other
'speed' aspects of lenses at least a couple of time recently.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|