> Interesting stuff and nice to know that the 14-54 and modern
> lens technology really is better (at least in some respects)
> than the old stuff. But I didn't undertand the last sentence
> above ("the limit is the sixth, etc.") and I was
> expecting to find the base line resolution from which all
> these -1 and -2 deltas were meaured. What don't I understand
> or what did I miss?
As I used the standard USAF line-pair resolution chart, I was
referring to the sixth "6" line-pair in the spiral. My USAF
chart is printed on an 8.5x11 piece of glossy photo paper. This
appears to be the "brick wall" point of the 5MP sensor. I fully
expect that an 8MP sensor would give me one or two line-pairs of
resolution.
So, in layman's terms where I indicate that it is 0 LP from
maximum, I'm saying that the lens meets or exceeds the
capability of the sensor to capture any more detail. We've hit
the brick wall.
I haven't gotten around to determining how many LP per mm all
this translates into yet. Not sure I really care, either.
However, to put this in another light, If my 35/2.8 is capable
of achieving maximum resolution on the 4/3 sensor, imagine what
it's doing on a 35mm negative or tranny which doesn't need as
much enlargement to make a fine print. The OM will live to see
another day.
AG
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|