Now this is good news for me. Since i bought my first OM 2 I felt
not-so-happy with my 713594 G.Zuiko. I could have bought a MC 900xxx,
NIB but missed the chance. Someone gave me a badly used MC 900xxx, and
it did well (my Technology TOPE entry
<http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=25&pic=21> was done with
this 900xxx).
Could it be that those comparison shots were done on a digital body
instead of film, as Ken pointed out?
If not, I'll start using my G.Zuiko more frequently :-) - or perhaps to
scan a Provia on which it shines at ƒ/5,6 !.
Fernando.
C.H.Ling wrote:
> Thanks for Moose and Chuck remind me about the S/N issue, it is a little
> strange that I found both SC and MC 109xxx has very similar performance. I
> don't think it is due to bad samples as both did very well even under 21MP
> sensor wide open, much better than I had expected.
>
> Test samples repost, RAW converted with sharpness set to zero (minimum):
>
> 50/1.4 SC, S/N 56xxxx (F1.4 and F2.8)
>
[snip]
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|