Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] The LUG is beating up Gary's testing

Subject: Re: [OM] The LUG is beating up Gary's testing
From: "Howard" <howar125@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:34:53 -0400
Hi Gary:

First, I want to state that I hold you and your work in the highest regard,
and find your professionalism to be above reproach. Surely, I am not alone
in my admiration. I very much appreciate your work and greatly appauld your
efforts. As THE authority tester of the camera system we all hold so dear, I
would appreciate your sharing your knowledge as to not only our beloved
Olympus systems but others of which you have intimate knowledge as well.
Albeit, I'm not sure that I understand all the acronyms (e.g. WYSIWYG) that
you have used herein, I do consider your OM system lens test as the Bible in
terms of reference materials relative to the lenses you have tested.
However, I was surprised to read your statement that [paraphrasing] after
"using most every camera there is. The Olympus system won out...& I have no
plans on changing till the day I die." By this do you mean that the OMs [1,
2, 3 & 4Ts] are superior to comparably priced wonderbricks made by its
competitors?? I refer to Canon in particular because two pseudo-friends have
switched and become successful pros. Thus, my intrigue. Since with current
rebates the top-of-the-line Ca*on EOS 1V costs roughly the same as an
OM-4Ti, the question arises as to which is the better value and why??
Moreover, inasmuch as you are relatively a young man, is it not conceivable
that your plans could change? [Upps, should this be considered sacrilege by
some on this list, please refrain from another flame war; my goal is simply
to produce the best images that my finite mind is capable of, irrespective
of the medium--which, btw has been soley via Olympus for the last 25 +
years.]

Please do not misunderstand. I am not disagreeing with you at all, rather I
am surprised, not in terms of your high opinion of OM cameras, per se, but
more as to the Zuiko lenses. Which Zuiko lens do you consider to be the
best?  IOW, which Zuiko lens, irrespective of costs, delivers the sharpest
images? And furthermore, is this lens' performance superior to the sharpest
35mm lens produced by C*non, N*kon, Min*lta and P*ntax? For example, do you
consider the Zuiko 350 2.8 superior optically to the C*non 400 2.8 or even
C*non 300 2.8?? Ditto as to comparisons between the other major 35mm lens
makers, as I know virtually nothing about any non-Zuiko lens (except what I
read). For ex., I have heard and read great things about the Tamron & Tokina
AT-X 80-200 f/2.8 as well as C*non's 70-200 f/2.8; but albeit your testing &
publishing relative to the former two indicates excellent performance for
ones OM system, I have not seen any mention of the latter. Have you tested a
C*non 70-200 "L" f/2.8 or any of the other highly regarded (By whom, right)
C*non "L" lenses? If so, how do they compare in absolute terms? Hopefully,
my questions have not overwhelmed you. If you deem them not suitable for
this forum, kindly reply off-list. In any event, your input is greatly
appreaciated!

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx>; <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] The LUG is beating up Gary's testing


> Hi Skip:
>
> << Well Gary, It looks like the LUG has been beating up your testing
> methodology a bit this week.  I hope you have your vest on.   They're
> quite
> a contrary and Solms-centered bunch over there.  In general, they don't
> have much REALLY good to say about anything else except the German
> glass.
>
> Look here:
> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v20/topics1.html
> The thread is entitled: [Leica] OM vs. Leica Lens tests, was How
> good/bad/terrible is the R4?, on Aug 21
>
> Keep on with your efforts, we all appreciate them. >>
>
> I've been told about this thread by others, also.  Funny thing is that
> those who criticize the methodology have never previously contacted me.
> Every methodology will be plagued by limitations.  That, in itself,
> shouldn't prevent someone from doing it, if the methodology is rooted in
> the scientific method.  Just evaluate the results within its limits.
> Furthermore, how many people who think they have better methodology ever
> finished the effort, like I have by tested every infinity focusable OM
> System Zuiko?  Or, have those who have tested all the Leica / Nikon /
> Canon (insert favorite brand here) glass, put a few Zuikos and others
> into the mix?
>
> Yup, the Vario-Projar is a bit low in contrast and the corners aren't
> the best at resolving power, but I consistently used it throughout the
> tests, so that confounding factor was held constant.  It's better than
> almost all Kodak projection lenses and matches the resolution of the
> original Leitz Colorplan 90mm f/2.5, although lower in contrast.  Sure,
> I could redo all the SQF evaluations using my new favorite Kodak Ektanar
> 102mm f/2.8 C. But if I remained within an A+ to D grading scheme, I'd
> still have the same relative differences in SQF grades between any two
> lenses, because I made the jumps from A to B to C to D visually equal in
> difference.
>
> Fujichrome 64T not suitable? Hum, that is like saying Panatomic-X wasn't
> suitable for Modern Photography to use because anyone worth their salt
> would be using Technical Pan because it resolves more.  Since Technical
> Pan wasn't around for most of the period Modern was testing, maybe they
> should have used H&W Control VTE Pan?  Egads, pick something closer to
> what the world is using.  I held the film type constant, so I eliminated
> that confounding factor, too. I picked a color tranny film with a speed
> slow enough to assure detail but not so slow that few would use a film
> in that speed class (witness the demise of Kodachrome 25).  A Type B
> film isn't mainstream, but a 64 speed was - at the time of most of the
> tests.  And I had to use a Type B film due to my lighting setup.  100 is
> now mainstream among persnickety users and 200 among general amateurs,
> as per the PMA 2000 market survey.
>
> I did bad science? Hum, 25 years as a research biologist taught me
> something about the scientific method.  The number one and two things
> for me were to minimize noise in the data (confounding factors) and have
> reproducible results.  And the third was to match the test method to
> something real world.  Microfilming topographic and geology maps and
> aerial photos were the most demanding applications of my Olympus OM
> equipment, ever.  So I stuck with something I knew and have done well.
> If my tests favor lenses with flat fields, so be it.  Anyone is welcome
> to do the tests over with a curved subject.  I sure get a peace of mind
> in knowing that what I'm focusing on - anywhere on the screen - is what
> will be in focus on the film!
>
> The projections were onto a flat white board or poster paper.  I
> refocused the projector lens as appropriate, so curved slides weren't an
> issue.  I would have liked to have prints, but I'm not a rich man!
> Plus, you have the effects of slide curvature in the enlarger negative
> holder!
>
> The 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron results point to something important for me:
> peep hole focusing of a telephoto lens on a Leica rangefinder body isn't
> something I consider easy. Especially in a model with a low base
> magnification.  I did have the body and lens checked out on a vertical
> autocollimator to assure perfect infinity focus.  I didn't use a
> focusing aid on the Leica eyepieces and I did use a Varimagnifinder on
> any SLR camera body (including all the OM lests) which would accept it.
> A Varimagnifinder and a 2-4 screen makes for a very satisfying
> combination - one which will leave the user assured they have acheived
> critical focus, assuming the body and lens are in calibration, the
> dioptric correction is correct and the lens attains in the center of the
> field a B- or better grade wide open (which results in fine detail
> shimmer).  I repeated the APO-Summicron tests because I though I might
> have misfocused.  I didn't - the results were the same.
>
> Rangefinder camera loose their focus accuracy advantage over an SLR in
> the 90-135mm range, depending on the distance of the rangefinder
> windows.  The 135mm Bronica RF lens has now been dropped because they
> couldn't get sufficient tolerances in the rangefinder cam to assure
> accurate focus.  The 90mm G-Sonnar I tested on a Contax G2 gave very
> poor wide open results and I think it was a case of the electronic
> rangefinder being at the limits of its accuracy ( I tried two different
> bodies and two different lenses).
>
> I lusted after a Leica along with the best of them.  I cut my eye teeth
> on a Canon IVS2 and VT system.  But it isn't a satisfying experience to
> actually use them.  I gravitated to a bright line axillary viewfinder
> for landscape work.  When I finally saw an SLR image through a Nikon F
> and an Olympus Pen F, I switched for ever.  I demand a WYSIWYG
> viewfinder and the 970f field you get in an OM body, plus accurate
> macro framing, is just my cup of tea.  Oh, and getting a recalibration
> of a rangefinder mechanism?  How many of us can afford the way Leica
> does it: your technican sends them the old mechanism as a trade in for a
> rebuilt one.  Ouch$  Even the Canon cost me more than I afford at the
> time.
>
> If anyone wants to post this rejoiner to the LUG, be my guest. Like
> Michael Johnston, who also got flack on the LUG, I've been fortunate to
> use most every camera there is.  The Olympus OM System won out and I
> have no plans on changing till the day I die.  It grows on you like a
> cherished wife.  And the best part is that she has inner beauty that
> doesn't come with the pitfalls of a "trophy wife," which is always the
> subject of comparisons and lust.  You can even build the system and
> still have disposible income, which is important towards purchasing the
> items which might otherwise rob your images of their power.  Such as an
> excellent projection lens, top notch film scanner, fine enlarger and
> enlarging lens, etc., and film to shoot, shoot and shoot till you get
> good.  It's always been a matter of cost/performance with me. Our wants
> never seem to end, but if we buy with cost/performance ratios in mind,
> we'll get more for our money.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
>
>
> < 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 >
>



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz