I seem to have missed something in the last few days. Apparently, as someone
was busy bashing Gary Reese's tests, we were comparing the G2 Contax and our
OM's. I am a sadder but wiser G2 owner, and a happy OM user, so let me
comment.
Actually, I sent some chromes to Gary for his own edification. I visited
Colorado last Labor Day, and took both systems, and shot them side-by-side.
The chromes I sent to Gary were some rejects, as I didn't want to trouble
him with their return, so there is one fly in the ointment, but I think they
still proved my point.
The difference between the two systems, one using what we all would consider
"out of date" designs, and another using state of the art computer designs
and the best coatings, was essentially invisible. Any difference, chrome to
chrome, could be easily ascribed to conditions. Many were hand-held, from
the Silverton train. Still, it was my intent to not conduct a highly
controlled scientific test, I knew what those resuts would be. I wanted to
compare the two systems under actual shooting conditions.
My own results? The G2 lenses are indeed good. They are quite sharp, and
render crisp images. It is likely that they favor contrast over sharpness,
as that is currently in vogue, as they are quite contrasty lenses. The
amazing thing to me is the comparative results of the older lenses for the
OM. They, too, are sharp, and in many cases contrasty, producing equally
good chromes. If there is a difference, it is in contrast, especially with
my SC 300.
What conclusions do I draw? The G2, in my opinion, is severely limited by
the autofocus system. The viewfinder fails to inform the user of the exact
location of the AF spot, especially in the case of the 90. I have had
generally good results with the G2 as regards focus, but I have been very
careful to try to focus accurately (not really the aim of the AF system),
and not shoot too close wide open. This is the reason that I have not had
the dreaded focus problem with my 90. From what I have seen, most people who
have this problem are shooting at 1 to 1.5m wide open, a recipe for failure.
I am going to sell my G2. I have decided that I don't do well with AF
cameras. for me, in ,most cases, they are slower, not faster. The G2 is a
fine, well made camera, with fine, well made lenses, with a problematic AF
system and a squinty viewfinder. It just isn't for me.
About Gary's tests. Yes, in the eyes of some, they are not scientific. For
those people, the only scientifically valid test is a MTF test, on a bench.
Certainly, MTF test have their validity, but this opinion more likely shows
a misunderstanding of the term scientific. Gary's tests meet methodical
standards, and are in their own way, equally valid. I consider lens testing
one weapon in my lens acquisition arsenal, but remember, the final test, for
anyone, is in the shooting. We've all heard of great lenses that test
poorly. Lets also remember that many of the great photos we all admire were
shot with lenses that would test poorly. The LUG should wake up and remember
all the great photos they revere that were shot with screw mount Leica
lenses with at best single coatings.
Now, let's talk about the joys of progressive bifocals and focusing. No,
let's not.
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|