Re: Ed at Modern

[Edward Meyers <aghalide@panix.com>]

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Stephen wrote:

> Edward Meyers wrote:
> 
> > "Having been the person responsible for lens tests on a major
> > photography
> > magazine in the U.S. from about 1959 to 1966"
> 
> I thought that name seemed familiar.   Modern Photography wasn't it?  I
> think your being a bit modest.  Please tell us some war stories about
> the then new Leicas and please compare the older lens test methods with
> the new nonsense that only PHDs really understand.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Stephen Gandy
> 
> 
I went out of the lens testing business in 1966, but observed it
as an editor on Popualr Photography from 1971 to 1986...
My thoughts go to making photographs with lenses and that the lens
doesn't stand alone. It's has a camera to go along with it. So,
I lens should be tested with film on the camera, not on an optical
benchwhich gives you theoretical answers that are electonically
converted into make-believe prints.
One concern is the film channel of a camera. Bob Schwalberg noted
much about this to me during our many lunches in the big apple.
For example: The screw-mount Leica's film channel is not so good.
The M camera is much better. The old Nikon F was excellent.
The Carl Zeiss Ikon Contarex was excellent. The tolerance on
how the film is held in place during exposure is a consideration.
Ask Norman Goldberg about this. He's the expert. Also, when the
cameras started to shrink in size (Olympus OMs) we became
concerned about the stabilization of the film while held in
the channel for the exposure. If the film comes right off
the cartridge without a certain distance for it to be held
flat, perhaps the film will not be so flat in the channel?
Yes and no. It's a consideration. When you make cameras with
excellent film channels, you probably end up with large
cameras and people like to buy small cameras.
So, make pictures with cameras and lenses. I think that's
what they are made for. Ed