I am a huge fan of controlled and repeatable tests. While they may not
tell you how a lens WILL perform under normal usages, they definitely
will tell you how they WON'T perform. If a lens ain't sharp in a
line-pair test, it ain't going to be sharp in the real world. But if
it is sharp in a line-pair test, it doesn't necessarily result in a
sharp picture in the real world.
Line-pair tests (or equivalent) are controlled tests supposedly made
under ideal conditions that remove as much influence of other factors
as possible. This is why Gary had to redo so many of his tests when it
was discovered that the OM-1, even with mirror lock-up, was causing
vibration from the aperture actuator. An inherent design flaw in
nearly all OM bodies. Had Gary used flash to illuminate the map
instead of tungsten lights, we may never have really gotten the
confirmation and group acknowledgement of the problem that we did. It
was a rumored problem, but never specifically identified and the
results published in such a clear and concise manner.
However, in the "real world", that particular design flaw only showed
up under specific circumstances. If you handheld the camera or used
flash, chances are that you'd never encounter the problem in the wild.
And if you did, it was too easy to blame other contributing
factors.Certain lens/camera/md combinations would either exasperate or
negate the problem too.
In the "real world", we're not shooting with mirror lock-up/prefire in
windless conditions and with five pound beanbags laying on the lens.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|