Better points of focus comparison are the veins in the lettuce leaves [or is
it bok choy?] and the emboidery round the neckline of the lady's blouse. The
difference in focus is quite pronounced.
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 420 deal
> It is a rough figure but not far away, here is an example at 14mm setting,
> the overall image may not be very sharp due to slow shutter speed but you
> can see the focus is on the dish (or the drink) while it should be on the
> face.
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/PC090020.jpg
>
> If focus shift is due to sensor positing error in the vertical plan (i.e.
> just up/down or left/right) it is ok as the target will still be sharp. I
> will not accept any focus shift which will cause image softness.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank van Lindert" <Frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> CH, is it _really_ as bad as that, 2 ft instead of 3 ft, or are these
>> figures just serving as an example of the phenomenon? If the figures
>> are from real life, then I would return that E-520 immediately and
>> not even bother having it repaired or consider to buy another.
>>
>> I own a E-400 and the focusing error is only 1 mm when the actual
>> object distance is 300mm. Or to put it (roughly) in those terrible
>> imperial measures, the error equals 1/32 inch at a 1 foot distance.
>> Quite acceptable, I would say ;-)
>>
>> How much is the real error with your E-520?
>>
>> Frank van Lindert
>> Utrecht NL.
>>
>> Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:27:23 +0800, "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I mean when you focus an object three feet away, the lens actually
>>>focused
>>>to two feet. The problem is very consistant and repeatable. It seems that
>>>the lower the color temp. (ambient light) the more it shifted.
>>>Unfortunately, even under sunlight it still shift a little with both the
>>>kit
>>>lens and my old version 40-150. The E-3 I once owned also had the same
>>>problem with the 11-22 and 50-200 but it was ok with 14-45 and 40-150.
>>>
>>>C.H.Ling
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know about E-420 but the E-520 I just purchased is solid built,
>>>>> image quality is on par with E-3 and focus is very fast. Unfortunately
>>>>> it
>>>>> has front focus problem, quite consistent and serious especially at
>>>>> the
>>>>> wide end. I backed to the shop and tried for another three, all have
>>>>> the
>>>>> same problem. I'm planning to send the camera to Olympus for repair
>>>>> after
>>>>> new year.
>>>>
>>>> CH, can you explain please what you mean by "front focus problem"? I
>>>> don't really understand what you are saying (since all focus has to be
>>>> in
>>>> the
>>>> front).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Brian Swale
>>>>
>>>> Brian Swale. Daytime phone 03 326 7447
>>>> http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/
>>>> Mobile 021 143 4249
>>>> 3/7 Menzies Street, Sumner, Christchurch 8081
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
