From: "pancho hasselbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:48 PM Subject: hi with a question
> Hello, Hi Pancho, welcome to the list! (Hm... "Pancho Hasselbach", what are you trying to pull here? We all know that "Pancho" goes well with "Sanchez", "Gonzales" etc. But "Hasselbach"...? No way. That's got to be "Dieter" or "J�rgen". Right? :-) ) > I've been following the list for quite a while, now it's time to join > in, in spite of the tons of email this will bring along... Well, you will just have to filter the list messagess to a folder of their own. I guess you know how to do that. Anyway, just wanted to say hi and welcome. I am also looking forward to comments from the expertise on your interesting problem. Lasse > I got to Pentax about a year ago, when I purchased my first SLR > remembering some words in favor of Pentax from an aunt of mine, who was > a photographer in her younger years. Let it be hazard or fate, I didn't > regret this decision by now. > > Now for my question: > I've taken a lot of photos with my LX over the past year, sometimes > feeling slightly unsatisfied with sharpness, especially at wide apertures. > As I understand this isn't necessarily an issue ;-) > I thought it was in perfect condition as it had been twice to Pentax for > repair. > Nevertheless, after finding an offer for an MZ-S I couldn't resist to I > was astonished about the achieved sharpness in some pictures taken at > wide aperture. > This made me think. > I've been using the just mentioned lovely combination of LX with SE-60 > screen, so I thought it might be a question of focussing. So I made a > few test shots with a split image screen to be completely sure where I > do focus at, focussing a certain point of a folding rule laid diagonylly > across the image. This to be able to determine the error in focus, if > there was any. > I'm sorry I can't show any pictures by now because I have to set my > scanner first, my computer gear is somewhat under construction. > I did the same shots, equally with a set of my widest primes at widest > aperture to achieve smallest DOF, using my Super A body that also > features a split image screen. > Now the result surprised me in a way I didn't expect. All shots taken > with 50mm lenses were in focus taken with the Super A, and focus was in > front of the point I had focussed to with the LX. > But the other two fast primes I own, A 1.4/85 and FA 43, showed a > different behaviour. > Focus was behind the point with the Super A, and just about right with > the LX. > I had read that the 85 would focus behind the focus plane but could't > imagine how this should work. Now I see that it does, somehow. What I > don't understand is why the 43 acts the same way, as it's focal length > is shorter than 50mm. Focal length seems not to be an explanation. > > I think my LX will meet Pentax again for a misaligned mirror, but first > I wanted to ask if somebody can explain why focussing depends also on > the lens used? > > Thank you so far for your answers! > > Cheers, > Pancho
