You're getting closer to convincing me. The background is certainly
sharper on the PanaLeica side of the fence but I still have to be
convinced that both lenses were focused at the same distance. The lens
differences at the edges of the field make that difficult to determine.
I still say show me two high contrast targets at 5 and 5.5 meters with
one in and the other out of focus.
I don't know what it means but found it interesting to compare these
images at 1/3 life size. My informal sharpening rules say to display
the image at 25-30 percent of its cropped and resized, full pixel size
in order to simulate what it will look like on a print. At 1/3 life
size the difference between left and right disappears and is even hard
to discern at 1/2 life size.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> OK, I added a third page to the article. The entire vertical portion
> of the center of the images are compared side-by-side. I did reprocess
> the images to address some issues in the process of converting
> Panasonic raw files and also adjusted the contrast to better match the
> two images to cover for the way one thinks something is sharper
> because it is contrastier.
>
> It does appear that the Zuiko shot is focused slightly closer, but not
> by much. Definitely not enough to explain the top portion of the
> image. I will admit, though, that in this example we see more issues
> with the 24mm lens with the curved plane of focus which does rear its
> ugly head at F4.
>
> As I mentioned before, over lunch I did retest with closer subjects. I
> can find reasons why these test images can be criticized, but I'm
> convinced that the test is repeatable.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|