Grain of salt.

Someone pointed out a review of the Arsat 30mm fisheye on
www.luminous-landscape.com . They gave a less than stelar review and posted
some sample shots showing their resolution "test". My arsat always seemed
extra sharp and then someone noticed in image #5, the camera isn't even
focused on the infinity target using the arsat but rather is focused on a
railing 15 feet from tha camera. I wonder why the distagon looks sharper on
the infinity target?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tat-30mm.shtml

If he had cropped close in on the railing we could say the distagon is a
POS? I also wonder if he knew the rear UV filter must be used and must be
screwed all the way in place as this is part of the optical formula? Not
using this can throw off the optical results and affect focusing distances.


BTW this was all pointed out to him and he said the text stands and as far
as the image "I will posted the correct one ASAP." We'll see...

--

Stacey

I think you need to take everything at that site with a grain of sale. They
originally compared the Canon D30 to a scanned MF slide, and said that the
D30 image was superior. They backed off. Later, it was the D60. The backed
off.

Jonathan Sachs, the original programmer of Lotus 123, runs the site. I'm not
sure he's ever made his living shooting.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Someone pointed out a review of the Arsat 30mm fisheye on
www.luminous-landscape.com . They gave a less than stelar review and
posted
some sample shots showing their resolution "test". My arsat always seemed
extra sharp and then someone noticed in image #5, the camera isn't even
focused on the infinity target using the arsat but rather is focused on a
railing 15 feet from tha camera. I wonder why the distagon looks sharper
on
the infinity target?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tat-30mm.shtml

If he had cropped close in on the railing we could say the distagon is a
POS? I also wonder if he knew the rear UV filter must be used and must be
screwed all the way in place as this is part of the optical formula? Not
using this can throw off the optical results and affect focusing
distances.


BTW this was all pointed out to him and he said the text stands and as
far
as the image "I will posted the correct one ASAP." We'll see...

--

Stacey

"B.o.w.s.e.r" wrote:

www.luminous-landscape.com

I think you need to take everything at that site with a grain of sale.
They
originally compared the Canon D30 to a scanned MF slide, and said that the
D30 image was superior. They backed off. Later, it was the D60. The backed
off.

So far so good, but:

Jonathan Sachs, the original programmer of Lotus 123, runs the site. I'm
not
sure he's ever made his living shooting.

No. Jonathan Sachs wrote Picture Window Pro (a lovely image editing program)
and (to the best of my knowledge) has nothing to do with LL. LL is Michael
Reichman's site.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"B.o.w.s.e.r" wrote:

www.luminous-landscape.com

I think you need to take everything at that site with a grain of sale.
They
originally compared the Canon D30 to a scanned MF slide, and said that
the
D30 image was superior. They backed off. Later, it was the D60. The
backed
off.

So far so good, but:

Jonathan Sachs, the original programmer of Lotus 123, runs the site. I'm
not
sure he's ever made his living shooting.

No. Jonathan Sachs wrote Picture Window Pro (a lovely image editing
program)
and (to the best of my knowledge) has nothing to do with LL. LL is Michael
Reichman's site.

You're probably right, but Sachs' name is all over the site, and he's
involved with many of the articles. The problem I have with that site is the
utter infatuation with digital, and their ability to properly test the
technology. The fact that they originally declared that the D30 equaled
their scanned MF was laughable, and shot their credibility to hell when it
comes to gear testing. Their location reports, however, are worthwhile.


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Bowzah wrote:


The fact that they originally declared that the D30 equaled
their scanned MF was laughable,

But the newsgroup digiheads took this as fact and proclaimed the death of MF
was here...

Guess they never heard the one about "Just because something's in print
doesn't make it a fact"?
--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Bowzah wrote:


The fact that they originally declared that the D30 equaled
their scanned MF was laughable,

But the newsgroup digiheads took this as fact and proclaimed the death of
MF
was here...

:-) My, how this thread weaves and wends. It's odd, but I think 35mm will
outlive 645, even given its disadvantages. If I had to draw a line in the
sand, I think the death knell will sound when 16 MP costs $1k. 645 will then
be dead for lack of relevance. That's in less than five years.

Guess they never heard the one about "Just because something's in print
doesn't make it a fact"?

And just cuz you read it on Luminous Landscapes doesn't make it false.
Necessarily.

Bowzah wrote:


"MikeWhy" wrote in message
. com...
"Stacey" wrote in message

Guess they never heard the one about "Just because something's in print
doesn't make it a fact"?

And just cuz you read it on Luminous Landscapes doesn't make it false.
Necessarily.

No, it doesn't. And that's the problem with these so-called "review"
sites. They can include useful info, but when they embarass themselves
repeatedly, it's hard to take them seriously.

Exactly, how can you take a site that is doing lens/camera reviews seriously
when they can't even focus a lens within 100 yards of the target?
--

Stacey

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
. com...
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Bowzah wrote:


The fact that they originally declared that the D30 equaled
their scanned MF was laughable,

But the newsgroup digiheads took this as fact and proclaimed the death
of
MF
was here...

:-) My, how this thread weaves and wends. It's odd, but I think 35mm will
outlive 645, even given its disadvantages. If I had to draw a line in the
sand, I think the death knell will sound when 16 MP costs $1k. 645 will
then
be dead for lack of relevance. That's in less than five years.

Guess they never heard the one about "Just because something's in print
doesn't make it a fact"?

And just cuz you read it on Luminous Landscapes doesn't make it false.
Necessarily.

No, it doesn't. And that's the problem with these so-called "review" sites.
They can include useful info, but when they embarass themselves repeatedly,
it's hard to take them seriously. The worst of these sites is Ken Rockwell.
He routinely "tests" gear without actually touching it. Yes, for real. Take
a look at his in-depth review of the Kodak DSLR:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/kodak/14n.htm

Note that he didn't actually use one!

I don't, but I see his web site cited frequently as a reputable source, and
it simply isn't. His tests are, at best, OK and at worst a total sham.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Bowzah wrote:


"MikeWhy" wrote in message
. com...
"Stacey" wrote in message

Guess they never heard the one about "Just because something's in
print
doesn't make it a fact"?

And just cuz you read it on Luminous Landscapes doesn't make it false.
Necessarily.

No, it doesn't. And that's the problem with these so-called "review"
sites. They can include useful info, but when they embarass themselves
repeatedly, it's hard to take them seriously.

Exactly, how can you take a site that is doing lens/camera reviews
seriously
when they can't even focus a lens within 100 yards of the target?
--

Stacey