Wayne and Chuck wrote
> > Me thinks you guys are being overly severe. I distinctly remember the
> > 200/4 having an apparently sympathetic vibration problem. I haven't
> > checked all the lenses yet but I did look over a lot of them up to 135mm
> > and don't see any significant problem there. It's very difficult to get
> > a true indication of the difference between mirror lock on the OM-1 and
> > mirror pre-fire on the 2s and up. The problem is that most of the tests
> > using different cameras also use different samples of the lenses. In
> > most cases the differences don't amount to a full grade and, since they
> > aren't paired tests, it's not valid to evaluate one as better than
> > another. Probably the biggest shock is not the effect of the diaphragm
> > slap but the performance difference of different lens samples.
> >
>
> ...and what about focussing accuracy ?
>
> ...Wayne
I respect Chuck's understanding of statistics and replication, and Wayne's
mention of focussing accuracy.
However, I point out that with very few exceptions, Gary's tests showed
clearly that the OM2000 and the OM 4Ti delivered sharper images than the
OM1 with or without mirror lock-up, and any other OM body. Lenses on the
bodies with pre-fire aperture stopdown and mirror lift WITH the Bogen long
les support delivered even sharper images as I recall (without checking
again tonight).
When it comes to the market test of image acceptability, less than a full
letter grade difference with a similar image made using a camera system
which does not have this handicap, in all probability will be sufficient to
ensure that the lesser quality image does not get used.
In other words, when push turns to shove, very small differences matter.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|