On 01 Jun 2010, at 8:37 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> That is really gorgeous, Philippe. Many on the list will not like it,
>> but I am a shallow DOF freak, especially when still-recognisable
>> objects
>> are rendered very much out-of-focus in juxtaposition to the in-focus
>> subject.
>
> This seems rather binary, Dawid. You seem to be assuming that because
> some people don't like shallow DOF as much as you, which is true, that
> they won't like Philippe's image at all. That doesn't make sense to
> me. I'm no "shallow DOF freak" but I like the photo very much.
I didn't quite mean it like that, Joel - I just though this might be
one of those "love it, or don't like it" images, knowing this group.
If more of you love it, all the better for Philippe!
> You're referring to focus by wire? In an AF system, this is perfectly
> reasonable as a way to make moderately priced lenses. I don't care
> how it does its job as long as it does it. In fact, without the
> mechanical drag of a traditional focusing mechanism it is actually
> easier to get precise focus with such a lens while using Live View.
> There is no good reason to apply traditional manual focusing
> assumptions to the operation of these lenses. Within the system as a
> whole, they work very well.
>
> Just curious, but you HAVE actually used an Olympus digital SLR at
> some point, haven't you?
I have indeed, when I was still an avid Canon EOS shooter, my
colleague and
close friend bought into the Four Thirds system quite seriously, and
we have
had ample opportunity to get experience with each other's gear. I have
experienced
and seen the results of most of the nicer FourThirds lenses, including
7-14, 8, 9-18, 25/1.4, 35 macro, 50 macro, 12-60, 50-200, and some of
the cheaper
kit lenses. Also the E-510 and E-3 bodies. We spent ages doing
comparison
tests between systems :-)
One of the first lenses he bought was the ZD 35mm Macro. No matter
what you say,
spinning a feedback-less focusing ring around 20 times to rack the
lens out
to 1:1 magnification is not cool. Nobody uses a focus ring to get
Macro subjects
in focus in anyway, I believe it's purely to set magnification, and
then move the
whole camera/lens combo for focus. So, from a usage and build quality
point of view,
this lens is terrible. But the optics are great. That's the price you
pay for the
world's cheapest really good Macro lens, I have no problem with that.
Canon's plastic fantastic 50/1.8 is a similar story, optically
fantastic, but a
cheap piece of junk otherwise. I find it interesting that the OM
system didn't
per se produce any badly-built lenses. Perhaps just a different era?
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|