10-09-2011, 03:19 PM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1318110928' post='12230']
I did read Roger Cicala's article, so I guess I am allowed to comment <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
I have had my lenses and cameras all adjusted by Canon to work together not just the way it gets normally done, but actually asked for a specific set up for myself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. That works for me.
As to tolerances: considering indeed the minute tolerances required for todays best lenses to work optimally, it becomes obvious when doing some calculations that if one wants to obtain the sharpest images consistently, not only body firmware, lenses and lens firmware have to be adjusted, but also lens mounts and sensors themselves.
Furthermore, investing in a metal camera body may not necessarily be the best option either, due to the fact that temperature differences, as indicated in the article, may result in non-optimal conditions for lenses. If that can pose a problem with lenses, it also can with camera bodies. Best therefore would be to use a camera body made from a material with an extremely small temperature coëfficient, such as some of the "engineering plastics" used <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Having said that, micro-adjustment always is a good option to be able to use new lenses in an optimal way until they too can be adjusted. Provided of course there is enough leeway to make these adjustments, and that the lens is not faulty beyond just a very simple and small back or front focus issue.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
My wording probably was not great if it insinuates that you had not read the article. Far from me think that <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I just wanted to draw the attention to the necessity of getting lenses adjusted WITH the body they are intended to be used with, which nobody thus far had brought forward. However, I disagree with you on the "engineered plastics" issue. In theory, of course it is possible to design a camera body with synthetic material that is far stiffer than steel. However price considerations do that that is not done and I have never seen any reference for instance to the use of hight quality carbon being used. If you have other info, I'd be delighted to learn about it. I still believe there is a reason why the pro bodies of Canon and Nikon have metal structure!
I did read Roger Cicala's article, so I guess I am allowed to comment <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.I have had my lenses and cameras all adjusted by Canon to work together not just the way it gets normally done, but actually asked for a specific set up for myself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. That works for me.As to tolerances: considering indeed the minute tolerances required for todays best lenses to work optimally, it becomes obvious when doing some calculations that if one wants to obtain the sharpest images consistently, not only body firmware, lenses and lens firmware have to be adjusted, but also lens mounts and sensors themselves.
Furthermore, investing in a metal camera body may not necessarily be the best option either, due to the fact that temperature differences, as indicated in the article, may result in non-optimal conditions for lenses. If that can pose a problem with lenses, it also can with camera bodies. Best therefore would be to use a camera body made from a material with an extremely small temperature coëfficient, such as some of the "engineering plastics" used <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Having said that, micro-adjustment always is a good option to be able to use new lenses in an optimal way until they too can be adjusted. Provided of course there is enough leeway to make these adjustments, and that the lens is not faulty beyond just a very simple and small back or front focus issue.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
My wording probably was not great if it insinuates that you had not read the article. Far from me think that <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I just wanted to draw the attention to the necessity of getting lenses adjusted WITH the body they are intended to be used with, which nobody thus far had brought forward. However, I disagree with you on the "engineered plastics" issue. In theory, of course it is possible to design a camera body with synthetic material that is far stiffer than steel. However price considerations do that that is not done and I have never seen any reference for instance to the use of hight quality carbon being used. If you have other info, I'd be delighted to learn about it. I still believe there is a reason why the pro bodies of Canon and Nikon have metal structure!