Joel Wilcox wrote:
> The moon shot on my homepage is this combination with the 330:
>
> http://myweb.uiowa.edu/jfwilcox
>
Not to pick on you; others have been posting moon shots, but you are
tough and this is when I thought to post about it. :-)
Perceived sharpness is some combination of resolving power, overall
contrast and edge contrast. The atmosphere is full of varying amounts of
moisture and dust and there is lots of motion going on within it. So the
greater the length of atmosphere one shoots through, the greater the
effect of the atmosphere on the factors that make up sharpness.
The moon is the object that is viewed through the longest distance of
atmosphere of any object we can photograph and resolve detail with our
cameras and normal lenses. It therefore seems to me to be the worst
possible test subject.
The effects of the atmosphere on contrast and edge contrast can be
largely overcome with post processing, making much more detail visible.
http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/Moon.htm
But the effect of air movement in effect creating subject movement and
thus subject motion blur is unrecoverable.
> I've always found the combo of 2X-A and 300/4.5 to be a trifle soft.
>
Just shoot something that's you want soft through lots of atmosphere,
like through
mist. http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=20&pic=33
<http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=20&pic=33> :-)
Seriously, I think a lot of that softness is inadequate vibration
control and/or atmospheric effects.
> I feel like I got pretty close to critical focus with the 330, but I
> still feel like it is a bit soft, though better than anything I ever
> got with an OM body.
>
I've not had a lot of trouble with accurate focus with the combo, but I
have a really good viewfinder eye.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|