I concur, Chuck. I have taken them apart and added superglue to the
faces, to be sure they can't separate. I can tell no difference at all.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 9/26/2014 9:06 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Ever since I read Mike Hattem's tests of adapters you've described
below I can't figure out what he was carrying on about. Consider that
the front and back mounts are not perfectly parallel. How is that
different from tilting a lens with a tilt/shift adapter? And if it
was a truly bad machining job... maybe only by 0.001-0.002 inch. The
image is not "distorted", only the plane of focus has changed. Unless
he's testing using a perfectly flat object located very close to the
lens and with almost no depth of field and also very precisely
parallel with the image plane I don't see how he could detect it...
even at 100%. I don't see that such a small error in the parallelism
of the two mounting faces is any kind of real world problem.
What's wrong with my logic?
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/25/2014 11:49 PM, Moose wrote:
The genuine Olympus MF-2 seems to be going for $160+, and there are
off-brand options available for ~$40. Do they fit well? Are the
materials and finish sub-par? Do they work? It is hard to justify 4x
the cost when it is just a carefully sized piece of metal and plastic.
I have read that front and back mounts must be very accurately parallel,
perhaps especially for WA lenses? In Mike Hattem's obsessive tests of
various MF lenses on FF Canons, including the 21/2.0 and 21/3.5 Zuikos,
he found that very small errors made a difference - pixel peeping at
100%.
Whether that's a problem with any specific versions, and how noticeable
any effect may be, I don't know.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|