Quick clarification:
Basically, none of my comments can be isolated from context of reply to
the post of Gwinn despite having been discarded again.
On Saturday, August 23, 2003, at 03:53 AM, Moose wrote:
I believe we have both semantic misunderstanding and technical
misunderstanding here.
I posit that when Bill says 'inconsistency
I did NOT and would NOT have utilized the word inconsistency as
reflecting the coatings or the quality of lenses in any manner. This
is a term posted by Gwinn which I believe to be incongruent with
science and the historical development path of Zuiko lenses.
' he means there are many different reflection colors in the 50/1.8
(by the way, we still don't know from the evidence presented which
version is being discussed) and pretty much all the same color on the
55/1.2
Read Guinn['s original post which does is not congruent with facts.
I further posit that Lee, like me, thought he meant poor process
control leading to coating which were inconsistent within and/or
between batches of the same element for the same lens.
This originated with Gwinn's comments, not me. The problem arose when
someone presumably with good intent extracted my comments and responses
away from Gwinn's post then proceeded to rebuttal ignoring the
essential context and thread.
As to the first supposition, I believe there may be a misapprehension
that consistency of reflective color is in some way indicative of
quality. The reverse is true. The earliest coated lenses had
relatively consistent reflection colors. Later SC formulas had more
and more different colors for the reasons I recently posted. All MC
formulas incorporate multiple colors. This multiplicity of colors of
reflection is a result of increasingly sophisticated and effective
coating design and technology, including better programs and faster
computers to run them on. The 55/1.2 is a relatively early SC coating
design. The 50/1.8 miJ is a relatively late MC design.
Exactly, all of the above and MORE.
As to the second supposition, I don't now believe that is what was
meant.
whunter wrote:
Whoa.....Take a deep breath. Perhaps i should have used 'stand
alone' wording in anticipation of cut and paste out of context and
out of my control as in the thread now presenting from Lee. My
original post in specific response to Gwinn's comment and provided
herewith for context:
The entire contextual portion of Gwinn's post has been removed again.
*****************************
One must factor:
- time period whence manufactured.
- where manufactured and the vendor for MC
There is an assumtion here that bears questioning. I am under the
impression that Oly manufactured and coated all their own lenses
My 'evidence' for use of an outside specialized vendor specifically
equipped for coating technology is indirect and valid but superfluous
to the review of this issue. Olympus manufactured lenses and cameras
and accessories and......... and subcontracted for specific services
and parts. (If pushed, I can probably find the relevant reference
albeit moot.) It does not really make any difference whether the
coating was done by an outside vendor, on Olympus production line A,
Olympus production line B, the revised production line C at Olympus,
or where ever. The times they were a changin and so was coating
technology and so were most if not all models of the product line .
As Moose has emphasized, this was not a de rigueur technology. The
constant evolution in science, equipment and MARKET for MC resulted in
a 'continuum; of coating products, presumably better performing over a
25+ year period. To find, as Gwinn designated to be "inconsistency" in
color and conclude this represents either presence OR absence of
"inconsistency" in coating and optical performance is NOT scientific
logic which matches the published facts.
except for the Cosina made zooms that were brought out with the
OM2000. If true, all this stuff about who may have done the work and
whether the 'cheap' lenses were just contracted out to some junk shop
would be moot. The 50/1.8 miJ is in fact a very high quality lens with
excellent performance, superior to the 55/1.2 according to Gary's
tests. It does use plastic in places where it doesn't affect the
optical performance but may affect durability. The cost argument is
essentially meaningless in this context where a much older design is
being compared to a much newer one.
Exactly....... "time period whence manufactured" and totally separate
"evolutionary period for the 1.8 versus the 1.2....."
Comparison of the 55/1.2 to the earliest version or 2 of the 50/1.8
would be more appropriate if this whole line of thinking had any
purpose related to evaluating the performance of lenses.
I totally concur, thus my 'rub' with the term "inconsistency". The
marketplace alone made these two lenses quite different products. I
for one, based on published optical testing, believe the 50/1.8 to be
one of the best lenses Oly made. Known facts support.. Colors are
reported to be diverse in this single product line with time which is
consistent with changing technology, NOT "inconsistency" in the product
- evolutionary period for the 1.8 versus the 1.2 which is more
than an order of magnitude when adjusted to include the number of
units produced for each design X options for low cost bid for large
production runs versus small / custom lots.
The maximum serial number in published reports for these two products
exceeds an order of magnitude in difference, a simple fact. Both were
excellent products and reasonably CONSISTENT in quality, good, but not
perfect as reported by testing labs. Whether coated 'in house' or by
an outside vendor, different equipment and technology led to equivalent
optical performance of the same lens product now reported to have
differing 'colors'.
Fundamental point: the facts disagree with Gwinn's linkage of color
and "inconsistency" in his use thereof. This list should be about
knowledge including science, not whimsical opinion. As previously
emphasized, definitely do not believe Lee intended to distort my
response by taking it out of context, but such was the result. This
convoluted point counter point evolves around something Lee and Moose
have both correctly stated: color analysis gives insight into evolving
technology when sequential specimens of the same model lens are
examined, but little if anything more. Olympus did not operate in a
technology vacuum. Documentation of evolving technology for optical
coatings during the OM chronology is well documented. Unless Olympus
releases historical records specific to the chronology of optical
coatings employed, the generalizations I rendered remain as intended,
valid generalizations congruent with the history of optical coatings
which impacted the OM product line. i know of no facts which support
the statement by Gwinn of "inconsistency" linked to color. I do
respect his perception and his effort to render this linkage in a
contributory manner. Science and known history do not support his
analysis.
Bill Hunter
Unexamined assumptions about design and production again.
Moose
< 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 >
|