Marnie, I had a few further thoughts on your (not dumb at all) question. A couple of years ago I was comparing my results in colour prints with a friend who has a Canon (model unknown, but relatively recent) and uses both a prime lens and a zoom in the 70/80 - 200/300 range. His prints, even at 6x4, were far superior to mine, and I was beginning to wonder about both my hardware and my methods. However, on a trip to London and Paris in 2001, my daughter introduced me to a lab which used a Fuji Frontier system, and I was blown away by the dramatic improvement in the quality of my prints. These were _sharp_, you could cut yourself with careless handling!
So when I got home, I set up a tripod on the roof of my apartment block, and shot test films with every one of my lenses at maximum aperture, two stops down and at minimum aperture, on slide film. I let the camera pick an appropriate shutter speed to eliminate any mechanical variations in the effective aperture. Under a loupe, it was clear that there was not much wrong with my hardware, as every one was sharp and evenly and consistently exposed. For a while after that, I sought out a Frontier lab, which was a few miles away on the other side of town and got good, consistent results from them. Now my local lab has changed hands, installed a Frontier system and I'm as happy as Larry! So what do I conclude? That it's far more likely to be post-exposure treatment that affects your quality than your camera and lens (unless you're using a Holga or Diana!), particularly if you use slower film and a tripod, or develop your hand-holding technique to minimise shake. In comparing results, even between lenses for the same system, there is a huge number of variables to consider, and I agree with other PDML'ers that hardware variations are generally not the principal ones. Variations of a few lpmm in resolution, or a few percent difference in MTF read-outs, do not a dog system make. You need to compare film speed, type, exposure conditions, exposure settings, and individual technique before looking at other factors. An interesting exercise might be to borrow a negative from one of the people you thought were so much better than you, and to see if your processing or lab can produce similar results from it as did they. On the subject of viewfinder use, I am very near-sighted, and must wear glasses all the time, except for reading, where I can manage without them for some time. I have my viewfinder adjusted so that it is comfortable with glasses on, and I wonder whether your viewfinder dioptre adjustment is correct for your vision? Just a thought... Sorry for such a long and rambling message, but I know we'd all hate to lose you to one of the dark side camps! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D? > Marnie: Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that better pictures are > made by different camera manufactuerers or better zoom lenses etc etc... There > are too many people already on this list who think that. A good lens, a good > camera and most importantly a good tripod and cable release is all you need to > create exceptional photos. You will notice that I said good not great. A better > (more expensive) zoom will give you a faster lens (no question there) that > might or might not be better than your consumer lens at say F8. The faster lens > will make focusing easier and be easier to use but the end result will not be > any better. > Use the money you save to buy a good slow speed slide film (Velvia or 100 > Kodak). Use a tripod and shoot early or late in the day. Your results will speak > for themselves... > Vic > >
