T3D Re: Distortion et all in zooms. (TECH-3D digest 285)

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Bob Howard <bobh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>RE: Greg W. didn't like my remark about zooms and suggested I check
>out an RBT camera. I didn't refer to RBT in that post, but my remark
> of course could disparage their use of zooms

Bob,

It was the use of the explicit adjective "suck" that I take exception
to.  I really don't agree that the images from my RBT X2 "suck", and I
don't believe that most RBT owners who use their optical-bench-matched
zooms would agree with you, either.  I know that most zooms aren't the
equal of a good prime lens, and I said as much in an earlier posting.
But, in my opinion, "suck" is just a little bit extreme.

If you had said something similar about, say, the Realist, I think you
would have had a fight on your hands.  As it is, I think the RBT
ownership is under-represented on this list.  Maybe most of us can't
afford computers, having paid for our RBTs, or perhaps most are too busy
taking prize-winning stereophotographs to be bothered subscribing to
Photo-3D, or are above being bothered by your comment; I really can't
say.  I *do* know that "the proof is in the pudding", and my photographs
taken with a pair of Tokina SZX 28-70 zooms certainly don't "suck".

>From the loose
>standards of marking lenses I would think that RBT would have to do a
>job of selccting that would be unenconomical.

In case you haven't noticed, RBT doesn't seem to be bothered
particularly by issues of economics, at least insofar as their selling
price is concerned. :-)

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



------------------------------

End of TECH-3D Digest 291
*************************