Want to see an odd DOF effect?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

RichA wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847


The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4/24/11 9:28 AM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:25*am, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

RichA wrote:
Two shots. *One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. *Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. *Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. *So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

You people obviously can't tell the difference between sharpness and
focus errors.

Olympus owners?!? LOL!!!

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847


The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...57603231101723
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7603231101723/

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:28:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:25*am, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

RichA wrote:
Two shots. *One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. *Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. *Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. *So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

You people obviously can't tell the difference between sharpness and
focus errors.

That's partly because of the way you set up the test. You should ave
used a longer row of batteries and focussed on one several batteries
back from the front.

Better still you should have used a scale.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 08:31:33 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41pm, Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,

wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.
Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the
(impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance
shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of
your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can
be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and
background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the
focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't
confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of
test; you
can see where the numbers become
illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...1/in/set-72157
60323110...http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...97/in/set-7215
760323110...

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they
way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.




You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?


Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

Perhaps someone else can duplicate the test. The results will be
confirmed or not.

--
Peter from my Droid

RichA wrote:
On Apr 25, 3:31 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

Sure. Here's some tests that support your initial conclusion about the
oly's sharpness wide open against the Nikkor (optical formula hasn't
changed afaik):
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...p/product/1279
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...php/product/97
I'm still skeptical of the degree of blur in the background though.

Note that the Oly test link is on m4/3 like yours.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Apr 25, 3:31*am, Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41*pm, Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

*wrote:
Two shots. *One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. *Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. *Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. *So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To *satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. *But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? *You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:









On Apr 25, 3:31 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:36:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:55*pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:









On Apr 25, 3:31*am, Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41*pm, Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

*wrote:
Two shots. *One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. *Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. *Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. *So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To *satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. *But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? *You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? *Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

The answer is in your shutter speed. The Nikon is lying about its aperture.
Or you are. -- The more plausible answer.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +1200, Me wrote:

On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:









On Apr 25, 3:31 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.

There's very little to no difference in the "quality" of the bokeh between
the Olympus and the Yashica. In fact, I prefer the bokeh "quality" of the
Olympus lens, though slight the difference may be.

A brainless Nikon fanboi are ye? If so, then you might want to consider
switching brands to mindlessly rave about if those exposure and aperture
settings are true. Nikon only became popular on the sheep-principle,
nothing more.