Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: Song Sparrow Up Close

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Song Sparrow Up Close
From: Rick Beckrich <rbeckrich@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 23:47:57 -0500
All this talk of old lenses rang true. I just unearthed my 4/200 Zuiko, the
one with the stuck diaphargm.

http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=21623

For a grab shot of another of my favorite birds... Straight from the camera
(because I don't know any better.)

Old school Rick (Really old)

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2/28/2017 1:48 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>
>> Here is my only visitor today, following a downpour of rain this
>> morning.  At normal size, it looks fine.  I went to a larger size for the
>> enlargement, after all of the "size matters" discussion on the LUG, but I
>> think the extra enlargement does an injustice to a lens from the 1980s.
>>
>> http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20170228-DSCF0255.JPG.html
>>
>
> You may be unfairly maligning the lens. There's a lot of noise from ISO
> 3200 which obscures detail. The other thing that happens as resolution gets
> higher and you crop further is that DoF gets shallower. The X-T2 has 22%
> greater nominal resolution, so when you magnify it a lot, magnification is
> higher than you ever used on the X-T1. If you look at DoF
> charts/calculators, you will see that the two factors driving it are human
> visual acuity and magnification. Magnify more and DoF gets shallower.
>
> It looks to me as though the head is slightly OoF, while feather detail
> suggests the plane of focus is on the front of the body.
>
> Noodling around a bit in PS; with more light, ISO of 400 or less, focused
> maybe 3/4" further forward, and I'll bet you wouldn't be faulting the lens.
> Yeah, yeah, I know; it's essentially impossible to nail focus that closely
> with living birds - but it's not the fault of the optics. :-)
>
> Big old lenses aren't necessarily lesser quality. When I tested the early
> Nikkor-Q 200/4 from the early 60s that I inherited from my dad against the
> later, more compact, Zuiko 200/4 and 200/5, the Nikkor handily whupped them
> both, center and edge, in resolution @ 100%.
>
> There is a price to pay in this case in size and weight. The 200/5 was one
> of my favorite walking around lenses, and is WAY smaller and lighter than
> the "Q", but not as good optically.
>
> Causes & Effects Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>


-- 

As much as I hate to "crow", I'm delighted to tell you that my 5-star
reviewed hardcover book for kids, ages 4-to-8,
*The Little Crow Who Could Not CAW
<http://www.amazon.com/Little-Crow-Who-Could-Not-ebook/dp/B01B2028SS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455042958&sr=8-1&keywords=rick+beckrich>,*
is
finally available as an interactive Kindle e-book from Amazon.com.

    (P.S. - The Kindle reader is a free app from Amazon that works on PC,
laptops, and most hand-held devices.)
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/


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