Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: olympus Digest V2 #210

Subject: [OM] Re: olympus Digest V2 #210
From: "R. Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:12:09 -0700
Good lord, I wasn't aware of this. Leave it to software engineers to  
decide that they can circumvent the shortcomings of questionable  
optics. It reminds me of all the amplifier designs that started  
coming out in the 80's that advertised power outputs of many hundreds  
(or thousands) of watts in packages weighing in at a few pounds.  
Special magical proprietary circuits allowed them to function much  
better than those old-fashioned audio amplifiers that were tied down  
to big iron transformers. Of course, it all turned out to be  
marketing hype. I remember trying to drive some 18" cabinets at a  
reggae festival back in the 80's with an 11-pound Carver PM 1.5 that  
was rated at 600 watts per channel and it left the sound check a  
smoking ruin. I ran back to the van and grabbed a 175-pound McIntosh  
MC-2300 that was rated at 300 watts per channel and it sounded much  
better and didn't break a sweat running the load. Say it with me,  
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

On Jul 31, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Moose wrote:

> Remember folks, the E-1 + ZD lenses has "lens shading  
> compensation", in
> which the lens tells the camera just how it vignettes. This can  
> then be
> compenstaed for either in the camera - very slow - or in RAW  
> conversion.


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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