No, I believe is was Dr. Tape, Dr. Schmidt, Dr. Maksutov and Dr.
Cassegrain who collaborated on that experiment to show that a big piece
of tape on your lens is less detrimental to image quality than the very
large obstruction created by the secondary mirror on a catadioptric lens
or telescope. Blocks a little light, creates a little extra
diffraction, causes a little loss of contrast but, as you say, cain't
hardly tell the difference. Them what obsesses over a little dust on
the bottle has it all wrong.
I was just the intermediary in this experiment. 'Course I had to come
along and lend 'em my camera. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Rodti MacLeary wrote:
>> Thanks Moose, and also someone else who suggested a Swiffer but whose email
>> I accidentally deleted when working my way through the other 200-odd this
>> morning!
> The amazing Dr. Swiffer, alter ego of Dr. Flash.
>
>> I don't think the 'matter' on the mirror is visible through the viewfinder -
>> it's just that it annoys me to see it there every time I change the lens!
>> I'll just leave it alone for the moment :-)
>>
> I assure you far more photographic equipment as been damaged by over
> cleaning than the reverse. You would be amazed how much crap (In this
> case, using Walt's definition.) can be on a lens without any discernible
> effect.
>
> I believe it may have been the above gentleman and scholar who did some
> tests with and without a big piece of tape on the front of a lens.
> Nobody could pick out which was which with any more than random success,
> as I recall. I certainly couldn't.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|