Stephen Scharf wrote:
>>From: alfredo pagliano <alfredo_pag@xxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: [OM] Re: New Base for OM Lenses
>>Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:43:00 +0200
>>
>>Tried on an old EOS 1D of a friend my Distagon 28 f/2.8 trough an
>>adapter and experienced high vignetting and loss of image sharpness at
>>about 80% of the radius, and the lens is not to blame.
>>
>HI Alfredo.
>I am not exactly sure what you're getting at with this statement...I
>apologize if I am confused. What conclusions should someone draw
>conclusions about the performance of a camera using an *adapter* and
>a lens that was not designed for it?
>
>
Hi Steven, easy now, calm down.....
>I honestly can't tell if you're intimating that there are issues
>with a 'old' 1D with respect to image quality and sharpness
>
Alfredo is new and Italian. His english is excellent, but with
occasional usages that miss subtleties. For example, he characterized
the 50/1.8 (yours getting any use anymore?) as cheap, leading to a brief
thread on the difference between cheap and inexpensive. So when he says
"old", he is merely specifying the "Mark I" as the camera body used,
nothing derogatory intended.
Also, context. He is posting to a thread about the performance of older
lenses designed for film when used on FF digital sensors vs. digital
design telecentric lenses. He is saying that his Distagon works fine out
to the edges with film, but not with a FF digital sensor. When he says
the lens is not to blame, he is not bashing the 1D per se, but saying
that the digital sensor is the reason for the anomaly vs. film.
I tend to disagree, as a matter of semantics, if nothing else, and say
that, when used with a FF frame digital sensor, the lens is to blame.
But it's all a matter of viewpoint. In theory, the Distagon might work
fine with a FF Foveon sensor, so maybe it is...............
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|