Can't complain about that !
...Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus
[mailto:olympus-bounces+wayne.harridge=structuregraphs.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Rick Beckrich
Sent: Thursday, 2 March 2017 3:48 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Song Sparrow Up Close
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.ht
>> ml
>>
>
> 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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
