Re: [Leica] apo 90 versus 4/150

["Michael Darnton" <mdarnton@hotmail.com>]

  I understand Mike's posting perfectly. "Scientists" have reduced my field 
(violinmaking) to a bunch of result-free drivel with their wishful thinking. 
MTF might very well be a useful concept, but to reduce the whole of the 
qualities of a lens to one single parameter strikes me as, well, absurd 
minimalism. Simplification of concepts to numbers appeals greatly to 
scientific types, and is certainly a useful strategy for developing 
products, but in the acoustics field, at least, I've noticed that the 
science types like to zero in on the things they can measure as being the 
important things, and snub the things they can't measure as being 
unimportant (classical sour grapes, in case you missed my connection). In 
the main, it hasn't fooled violinists, however, and it doesn't sound like 
the approach fools every photographer, either.
  --Michael Darnton


Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:45:17 +0100
From: "lucien@ubi.edu" <director@ubi.edu>
Subject: Re: [Leica] apo 90 versus 4/150

Mike Johnston wrote:

>I'm sympathetic to the temptation to compare things like MTF
percentages
>and extrapolate out to what "should be" the case, but it amounts to
>wishful thinking--more careful research than that is required to find
>the truth. There is more to "print quality" than lp/mm.

Mike,

I hope you can do better than that to convince us.

;-)

By the way, do you really want to convince, or do you want to contradict
Erwin whatever he say.

You often give me the impression that you slightly misunderstand what he
explain, in purpose.
If it's true, it will never end.

I hope I'm wrong.

Lucien
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com