Thanks Moose,
You perfectly understood my intenctions, I did'nt would detract
anything from the Camera, C*n*n cameras are for sure excellent pieces
of equipment.
I was simply arguing about the telecentric design of the new Zuikos, as
compared to my own findings using an "old" optical formula like the
distagon on a digital sensor.
I really think the real bottlneck is the flange dimension, when it
comes to designing good performing lenses for 24X36 digital.
Sure You can work out the image with an image editing program, but that
was not the point.
I agree with Stephen that colormanagement in the workflow is essential
to get the best from Your digital image, and the same applies to
scanned film or traditional prints.
There are so many variables in each photographic workflow, that is
often hard to get excellent results whitout enough experience, I'm
still learning, and happy to do so.
As I have already posted in this forum, I'm concerned about photography
as a form of art, and in my own opinion there are many subleties that
lend to a story-telling image, that simply are very difficult to
categorize (does this word work?).
It's the photographer in the end that "makes" the foto, be it with the
latest equipment or with a stenopeic hole...
Apologies for any misunderstanding caused from my post.
Alfredo
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Moose wrote:
> Stephen Scharf wrote:
>
>>> From: alfredo pagliano <alfredo_pag@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [OM] Re: New Base for OM Lenses
>>> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:43:00 +0200
>>>
>>> Tried on an old EOS 1D of a friend my Distagon 28 f/2.8 trough an
>>> adapter and experienced high vignetting and loss of image sharpness
>>> at
>>> about 80% of the radius, and the lens is not to blame.
>>>
>> HI Alfredo.
>> I am not exactly sure what you're getting at with this statement...I
>> apologize if I am confused. What conclusions should someone draw
>> conclusions about the performance of a camera using an *adapter* and
>> a lens that was not designed for it?
>>
>>
> Hi Steven, easy now, calm down.....
>
>> I honestly can't tell if you're intimating that there are issues
>> with a 'old' 1D with respect to image quality and sharpness
>>
> Alfredo is new and Italian. His english is excellent, but with
> occasional usages that miss subtleties. For example, he characterized
> the 50/1.8 (yours getting any use anymore?) as cheap, leading to a
> brief
> thread on the difference between cheap and inexpensive. So when he says
> "old", he is merely specifying the "Mark I" as the camera body used,
> nothing derogatory intended.
>
> Also, context. He is posting to a thread about the performance of older
> lenses designed for film when used on FF digital sensors vs. digital
> design telecentric lenses. He is saying that his Distagon works fine
> out
> to the edges with film, but not with a FF digital sensor. When he says
> the lens is not to blame, he is not bashing the 1D per se, but saying
> that the digital sensor is the reason for the anomaly vs. film.
>
> I tend to disagree, as a matter of semantics, if nothing else, and say
> that, when used with a FF frame digital sensor, the lens is to blame.
> But it's all a matter of viewpoint. In theory, the Distagon might work
> fine with a FF Foveon sensor, so maybe it is...............
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|