At 09:18 AM 9/3/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>At 08:29 AM 9/3/2000 -0500, Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Sometimes I think the only reason I keep my modest little Nikon system
>>going is a very beat up Nikkor 85/1.8 (with only six blades) that plays
>>second fiddle to no lens in its class (i.e., Zuiko 85/2; not sure the 90/2
>>isn't in a class by itself). Also, the 55/2.8 micro ain't no buffalo chip.
>>
>>Here's a bakeoff between the Nikkor 85/1.8 AI and Zuiko 85/2:
>>
>>http://avalon.net/~jdub/bokeh.htm
>>
>>Need I say, however, that the Nikkor is twice as big as the Zuiko?
>
>
>Is it my imagination, or does the Zuiko-imaged pic display a slightly
shallower depth-of-field, causing the "bokeh'ed" background to appear
softer? Were both pics taken at the same lens-to-subject distance, Joel?
I didn't move the Bogen 3220. Quick release plates on both the OM-4Ti and
FE2. Focus on the same spot on the cup. Self-timer/MLU routine in both
cases. The differences in lens-to-subject distance would be in the
physical characteristics of the cameras and lenses. I'm relatively sure
the plane of the film was virtually in the same place.
>
>Oh wait, the remarks at the bottom of the page state that you used an
equivalent unsharp mask in Photoshop on both images. Hmmm...
>
Not sure what the "Hmmm" means. :-)
I'm not sure how valid the comparison is not using the same film in both
cases. I was surprised at the difference. The Provia/Zuiko image didn't
"pop" as readily as the RSXII-50/Nikkor. I wouldn't have bothered putting
them out there if there hadn't been this discussion of bokeh. Then again
maybe there's not enough going on in the background to evaluate the bokeh
in this case. I'll leave that to the true believers to evaluate. ;^)
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|