But I worry that the comparison is manual focus vs. autofocus - the
subject is all about the same distance from the camera and all equally
out of focus so you can't see if there's an area elsewhere in the
picture that might be sharp. One could say that it's the camera that
can't focus. (excuse heresy:-)
Got any other examples?
br
jez
On 2/9/06, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Nope. It had to deal with it's 'normal shooting conditions'.
> If it can't hit the point on that target, then it's no bloody good,
> right?
> I had similar problems with the 17.5-45mm kit lens with the E500.
> I'm used to better.
> AndrewF
>
>
> On 09/02/2006, at 11:30 PM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
>
> >
> > Phew/yuck!
> > (Did you manually focus (B-mode) the bloody kit lens too?)
> > br
> > jez
> >
> >
> > On 2/9/06, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, I know it's not fair but I really wanted to see what the E-330
> >> sensor could do and so put the old OM 50mm f3.5 macro in B-mode
> >> against the bloody kit lens. Now, you tell me. I would have liked to
> >> try the DZ 50/2 but it wasn't available.
> >> http://www.pbase.com/afildes/image/55877883
> >> http://www.pbase.com/afildes/image/55877884
> >> Available light, tripod, 200 ISO, around 1/8 sec. They are both a
> >> crop from the centre and about 50% of the original image area.
> >> B-mode is slow but with the 10X magnification focus check it is
> >> accurate.
> >> The kit lens is not only soft but looks muddy as well.
> >> AndrewF
> >>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|