Ken wrote
> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=2440
>
> Olympus E-1, Zuiko 100/2
Sorry to say, but I don't fully agree.
What is most lacking in that shot is auto-focus. The zone of most-sharp
focus is on the handles of the mugs, well away from, and this side of, the
zone of most interest..
Manual focus, small mirror, no split-image focus aid ...
I remember well on getting the E-1 how much sharper its (hand-held)
images were compared with hand-held OM film shots, and I put it down to
these factors.
1) Since the lens is already stopped down on the E-1, the exposure process
can not be plagued by the stop-down vibration that the work in 2000-2002 by
Gary Reese showed is inherent in the OM system due to the design of the
mechanical aspects of Zuiko lenses. And which, apparently Maitani was not
aware of.
2) Compared with the OM cameras, the mirror is amazingly lighter ( and the
body comparatively heavier) to the extent that mirror-shutter vibration is
practically undetectable to my hands. The same can not be said of the E-3,
in my opinion, and for which image quality can suffer even when on a tripod,
if IS is turned off. I discovered this on close examination of the many
exposures I took of the line of autumn poplars ( Chard Farm vineyard). To
my surprise my hand-held shots ( IS on) were sharper than my tripod shots
with the same gear, (but with IS off, as per Olympus recommendations).
3) Image quality with the E-1 is improved in my opinion, if the old standard
tripod procedure of auto-delayed exposure is used.
My 2-cents-worth.
Brian Swale
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|