Why? Do you take this nitwit seriously?

G

So, JR, you've come a bit late to the Ltd party, but no doubt you had decided to save the best 'til last.

When it comes to lens quality, just as with sound quality, some things just aren't amenable to measurement, or we aren't yet clever enough to devise the right measuring techniques. Or, indeed, to define what precisely it is that we need to measure.

As you have discovered, the FA Ltds have an indefinable something that transcends tests, and renders them irrelevant. They are just sublime.

And it's no surprise to me that the 77mm is your favourite. Mine too.

Happy shooting.

G

I didn't read the Photo Technique review. Were they talking about the fact that the 1:1.2 is relatively soft wide-open?

I use the 1:1.2 for two reasons. First, for portraits, where the wide aperture allows for some stunning results, and the softness doesn't matter.

Second, when the light is very low, and a bit more aperture allows a slightly shorter exposure.

But that won't be necessary with my next camera, the K3.

G

It's not altogether surprising that Sony got rid of the Minolta name. Sony is one of the world's best-known and most-respected brands.

You can't say the same for Ricoh. If either brand is dropped (for cameras), it is more likely to be Ricoh than Pentax.

I am optimistic about this. Hoya made no secret of the fact that it wanted to dispose of the camera division. What Ricoh is buying IS the camera division, and despite Dr Orloff's pronouncements, I can't see Ricoh embarking on this if they are short of cash.

G

My bet is that you'll like all of them, but you'll love the 77mm.

G

Bridge cameras will only supplant DSLRs when the image quality is as good or better, and when the viewfinder is as good or better.

To equal the IQ of a DSLR, bridge cameras will have to have APS-C sized sensors, and that means they'll need APS-C sized lenses, so they'll be almost as big and heavy as DSLRs. And a bag of kit will effectively be just as big and heavy.

Once video viewfinders can be made that are better than optical, then people will switch. But the bridge at that point will look and feel like a current DSLR without the pentaprism.

I suspect we are getting close to the limits of digital image technology, and we are certainly close to the point where improvements in quality will be unnoticeable for all practical purposes.

We have been used to seeing continual improvements in digital cameras, but this situation can't and won't continue for ever.

The Hi-Fi market is instructive. Forty years ago there was a huge interest in Hi-Fi and a commensurately large number of magazines devoted to the subject. By the 1990s, technology had reached the point where further improvements were negligible, and hugely expensive.

Nowadays, an amplifier on a chip can out-perform stuff that used to cost thousands of pounds, and people select their music-making equipment on the basis of looks and size, rather than sound quality.

'Twill be the same with cameras, ere long.

G

I think your technique is suspect. You shouldn't draw any conclusions from these pictures. None is as sharp as it should be.

G

I remember it as:

The God of Thunder thundered by,
Upon his Arab filly.
"I'm Thor", he cried.
The horse replied:
"Well, try a thaddle, thilly".

My advice is to forget HDR!

Cheers

G

I have decided that Mr Expert is having us on.

Well done, Sir.

G