Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I really enjoyed reading the book but also think that sometimes there are some "shortcuts" that are quite "easy", or some comparisons that are strange: e.g. in the lens test chapter about the 280 mm f4 and f2.8: Erwin states that Canon is using 17 elements in 13 groups in the 300 2.8 IS USM to reach the same level of quality as the 280 f4, whereas leica is using only 7 elements in 6 groups in the 280 f4. 1) why compare a f2.8 and a f4? 2) The canon 300 2.8 IS USM is built with the Image stabilzation technology, which use many lenses. He should may-be compare with the Canon f4. I think this is close to an orange-apples comparison because if you continue the reasoning imagine what would be the quality of a leica 280 if they where using 17 elements ... :-) logan. >From: Ext-Peter.Sikking@nokia.com >Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: RE: [Leica] Compendium Review >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:12:50 +0300 > >--Re: While they were at it a second round of proof-reading > would have been in order. There are far to many minor typos. > >I got the book. >I think Erwin should have paid a second year physics student >500 gulden to check the physics explanations in the book >which sometimes get very shaky, especially if they prove >a point he's making. > >The usual Erwin verbosity gives is there to give you the feeling >something scientific is going on, where there of course isn't, >see the recent hilarious hexar/m6 focus accuracy test. > >This book is my first introduction to lens aberrations, and because >of the shaky physics I do not have the feeling I can trust him on >this subject. > > --ps/032 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp