sebboh wrote: Makten wrote: carstenw wrote:
Ah, I see it now, but... it is so easy to make a very slight error in such a test that I am not sure it is convincing. You could have been slightly non-square, and focused in such a way that only the most distant left side was unsharp. In theory. What about measuring out an exact distance and ensuring perpendicularity via trigonometry and repeating, maybe on a more distant wall or something?
In theory, yes. I\'ll have to find a better target where you can see that it is really straight on (you only need horizontal and vertical lines for that). I don\'t have anything good at home though. Books are too small and magazines or newspapers don\'t have the same figures and letters allover the pages.
Edit: But Carsten, would you agree that this in fact is unacceptable performance if the test is done properly?
if i were the person you are trying to return this to i would not accept this test as there is no way to verify that the lens is properly aligned with the target. regarding whether or not this is acceptable performance, that is a subjective question. i bet zeiss itself (or sony as directed by zeiss) only has specs for acceptable amounts of decentering at infinity where you say you can\'t notice a difference. if you think it is relavent to your shooting though, i would return it.
Most companies (and I would have to lump Sony in this group) do not take the kind of care in the assembly and the alignment of their optics in their lenses that Leica does. This is part of the reason for the cost and the performance of many of Leica\'s lenses. I would not expect that much care and consistency for a more mass produced camera and manufacturer such as this new Sony.
Rich
Dec 16, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Previous versions of naturephoto1's message #11196701 « Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread) »
