On 8/14/2010 3:10 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Hmmm. After reading your intro here I thought you were declaring
> victory. But I sure don't see any difference between 5.8 and 6.4
> meters. But that was tougher than really required I think.
The Eagle Eye calls this one in favor of ... The Silver Snouted One.
> Moving the goal post a full meter between the OM 24/2.8 at 5 meters and the
> OM Zoom at 24/3.2(>) at 6 meters will move the depth of field 5 meters
> further out.
Much as I appreciate Chuck's thoughtful and informative contribution in the
area of DOF, which I would never go the the
trouble of doing for myself, the basis of the scientific method is empirical
testing. To my eye, the circled points are
subtly, but clearly, sharper than the same spots in adjacent strips.
I also note that both foreground and background details show an orderly
movement toward a more distant focus point.
I appears that AG slightly missed focus on the middle 24/2.8 shot, compared to
the others, but that it is still between
the others.
Should he post little, vertical resolution targets at each distance and double
the distances , as you suggest, I'm
convinced the proof of ability to focus accurately would be dramatic.
> ...
> I think my hypothesis is still holding but I suspect you're not going to try
> the extra 1/2 meter to disprove it. Just send me your camera and lenses and
> I'll do it. :-)
I disagree. Carefully thought out and calculated as your projections may be, I
conclude that your hypothesis doesn't
stand up to empirical test. Certainly it must be correct at some point as the
test points get closer together, but at
half the distances you proposed, it fails to my eye.
Moose In Focus
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|