Thanks for the feed back on this.
On the cheapies though, I have 3 more that I am getting rid of, it would
have been a crying shame to have put out big bucks on those experiments.
Some of my better cheapie auctions end when most of the world is asleep, say
6 AM Greenwich (Universal) time and I drop my maximum bid at the last
moment, not using the auto bidders yet, that would admit my addiction to
E-Flay.
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Moose
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 2:25 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: ISO and teleconverters
Scott Peden wrote:
> I just played with ISO a lot today and what a lesson, and I was able to
use
> that and shutter speed (S priority) to get the best pics of the full moon
I
> have taken to date, with that crappy (I shouldn't call it that if it is my
> best pics to date!) $41 500 mm lens and a Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing
> teleconverter MC O/OM. 2.75 inches long. Bout $45 after shipping.
>
I bet there were other bidders. A decent price on a great lines.
Anybody needs one, I have a spare for sale.
> <snip>.
>
> I also have a Vivitar Automatic Teleconverter 3X - 21. I can't find any
> details on it or what the numbers mean, but the degradation is seriously
> more than the 2 X. No one bid against me on this, I got it (after
shipping)
> for $25 I think.
>
>
>
> I took a mess of photos today at a tree top 800 feet away, using the
Hanimex
> 70-210 I got (another one no one bid against me on, with shipping it was
> $45)
>
Think there might be a reason nobody else was bidding on these?
> <big snip>
>
> After checking out Jan Steinman's Zuiko shoot out and looking at what his
> Oly 2X-A did, it actually improved one of the lenses results.
>
I am still of the opinion that Jan's test's, while enjoyable and
indicative of direction in some cases, had too much inherent subject
movement with large, living birds on the thin branches of a tall tree,
to be reliable indicators of comparative lens optical quality.
I'm not all that big a believer in lens test charts. I think they don't
show how the lens renders low contrast tonal subtleties, especially in
color. On the other hand, I really believe in good solid technique to
keep camera and subject absolutely still. If the subject is moving, even
a little, especially with teles, and especially if the movement varies
from moment to moment, how can I possibly separate lens sharpness from
motion blur effects.
Yes, the 2xA is a great teleconverter (better than the 7 element
converter I have that is probably the twin of your Vivitar) certainly
one of the best ever made and the best ever made in OM mount, but it
still, in effect, enlarges all the weaknesses in the lens to which it is
attached. So yes, there are circumstances where the same subject, shot
from the same distance, with the same lens with and without the 2xA, and
printed at the same subject size, can be sharper with the converter than
without. But, the results will not be as good as a shot taken with an
equal quality lens of double the focal length. Yeah sure, nothing is
ever absolute, and some person somewhere had a contradictory result. but
don't plan on it.
> I now I'm going to get what we pay for, good glass and good craftsmanship
> will give me more opportunities to get good shots
Which is why we don't buy Hanimex. :-)
> , but practice, even with the basement bargains I've started with has
given me a lot to learn with.
>
Nice rationale. I still think that buying quality still provides the
learning opportunity, with equipment that will be up to doing the job
once it is learned, and without the modest, but still $ cost of the
cheap stuff.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|