Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #11837985 « Lens Adapters: There Is No Free Lunch »

  

Bifurcator
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: lens adapters for landscpape use/ real world vs. test experience


Jeff Kott wrote:
Roger Cicala has written a note explaining that not one lens adapter tested by him would be acceptable to use for lens testing.


I thought maybe I was reading the writings of a total tard till I came across this one sentence:


    What Does It Mean in the Real World?
    Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot.


So at least he's not a total tard... ok.. whew. But that's the only sentence I found useful in the entire article. How many people here are professional lens testers? I'm betting none. Or maybe one out of the hundred thousand FM subscribers...

He should have been a little more straight when answering his own question though: Q. What Does It Mean in the Real World? A. Absolutely nothing at all! Heck the weight of most 50/1.4 SLR lenses can warp the plastic (which positions and supports the mount) more than the tolerances he's talking about

I suppose it's interesting to watch nerds being nerds tho, so I can see the fun in reading an article like this. Don't give it any credibility tho - it's actually meaningless!

I have used a micrometer on the thicknesses of my Chinese cheap-0 $20 adapters and 14 of 16 were right on (within the tolerances of the micrometer itself). One was just not seated right (fixed), and the other is a tilt-adapter what doesn't zero properly.





Oct 01, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: lens adapters for landscpape use/ real world vs. test experience


Jeff Kott wrote:
Roger Cicala has written a note explaining that not one lens adapter tested by him would be acceptable to use for lens testing.


I thought maybe I was reading the writings of a total tard till I came across this one sentence:


    What Does It Mean in the Real World?
    Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot.


So at least he's not a total tard... ok.. whew. But that's the only sentence I found useful in the entire article. How many people here are professional lens testers? I'm betting none. Or maybe one out of the hundred thousand FM subscribers...

He should have been a little more straight when answering his own question though: Q. What Does It Mean in the Real World? A. Absolutely nothing at all! Heck the weight of most 50/1.4 SLR lenses can warp the plastic (which positions and supports the mount) more than the tolerances he's talking about

I suppose it's interesting to watch twits being twits tho, so I can see the fun in reading an article like this. Don't give it any credibility tho - it's actually meaningless!

I have used a micrometer on the thicknesses of my Chinese cheap-0 $20 adapters and 14 of 16 were right on (within the tolerances of the micrometer itself). One was just not seated right (fixed), and the other is a tilt-adapter what doesn't zero properly.





Oct 01, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: lens adapters for landscpape use/ real world vs. test experience


Jeff Kott wrote:
Roger Cicala has written a note explaining that not one lens adapter tested by him would be acceptable to use for lens testing.


I thought maybe I was reading the writings of a total tard till I came across this one sentence:


    What Does It Mean in the Real World?
    Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot.


So at least he's not a total tard... ok.. whew. But that's the only sentence I found useful in the entire article. How many people here are professional lens testers? I'm betting none. Or maybe one out of the hundred thousand FM subscribers...

He should have been a little more straight when answering his own question though: Q. What Does It Mean in the Real World? A. Absolutely nothing at all! Heck the weight of most 50/1.4 SLR lenses can warp the plastic (which positions and supports the mount) more than the tolerances he's talking about

I suppose it's interesting to watch twits being twits tho, so I can see the fun in reading an article like this. Don't give it any credibility tho - it's actually meaningless!

I have used a micrometer on the thicknesses of my Chinese cheap-0 $20 adapters and 14 of 16 were right on (within the tolerances of the micrometer itself). One was just not seated right (fixed), and the other is a tilt-adapter what doesn't zero properly.







Oct 01, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: lens adapters for landscpape use/ real world vs. test experience


Jeff Kott wrote:
Roger Cicala has written a note explaining that not one lens adapter tested by him would be acceptable to use for lens testing.


I thought maybe I was reading the writings of a total tard till I came across this one sentence:


    What Does It Mean in the Real World?
    Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot.


So at least he's not a total tard... ok.. whew. But that's the only sentence I found useful in the entire article. How many people here are professional lens testers? I'm betting none. Or maybe one out of the hundred thousand FM subscribers...

He should have been a little more straight when answering his own question though: Q. What Does It Mean in the Real World? A. Absolutely nothing at all! Heck the weight of most 50/1.4 SLR lenses can warp the plastic (which positions and supports the mount) more than the tolerances he's talking about

I suppose it's interesting to watch twits being twits tho, so I can see the fun in reading an article like this. Don't give it any credibility tho - it's actually meaningless!






Oct 01, 2013 at 02:57 PM



  Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #11837985 « Lens Adapters: There Is No Free Lunch »