Nikon lite touch 28mm vs Oly trip 28mm, which is sharpest ??

[tammons]

Nikon lite touch 28mm vs Oly trip 28mm, which is sharpest ??

Thanks

 

[Aristophanes]

Got a microscope and huge prints?

 

[tammons]

I have owned a Nikon lite touch in the past and know its very sharp. Just more curious about the OLY trip 60AF. Dont want to order it, burn film only to find out its a dog.

 

[btgc]

I have owned a Nikon lite touch in the past and know its very sharp. Just more curious about the OLY trip 60AF. Dont want to order it, burn film only to find out its a dog.

Olympus Trip 28mm variations were budget cameras, quality wise - nothing like original Trip. Compare prices (when the were new), it tells a lot about cameras.

 

[tammons]

Okay thanks

 

[farlymac]

This is one of those comparisons I would love to do back when I could still get 12 exposure rolls of film. I don't have any bulk rolls to wind up right now. I do have the Trip AF 50, but a Nice Touch 4 with the 29mm lens. I don't think it would be the same quality as the Lite Touch. I did get some nice shots with the Trip AF 50.

PF

 

[tammons]

The lite touch I had was noticeably sharper than my Oly XA-2. Enough so that I lost interest in the XA-2. I only test them side by side with 400 c41 film. Never shot either with microfilm or fine grained film etc.

 

[sevo]

Assuming the Nikon to be the thing sold as AF600 in the free world, mine has some erratic back-or-front-focus issues in low light - I suppose they gave the AF the absolute minimum number of steps needed at 28mm, which that becomes evident when the lens is fully open. But the Olympus Trip AF series is about the same age and a class below, so it won't be any better there - basic AF usually had four to eight increments only. If you want something better, you may have to pick a luxury P&S, or a middle class P&S that is considerably more recent (2000's vintage).

 

[btgc]

Some 28mm Trip models emphasize lens is fully made of glass. With cars, it would be like noting car is equipped with rear brakes, in addition to front.

I have focus-free variation - no need to prefocus so this is bare P&S how I understand it. Despite all drawbacks, I gladly shot test roll with it. Other cameras need some tweaks, but they reward me with higher image quality. It's always compromise.

 

[farlymac]

Some 28mm Trip models emphasize lens is fully made of glass. With cars, it would be like noting car is equipped with rear brakes, in addition to front.

I have focus-free variation - no need to prefocus so this is bare P&S how I understand it. Despite all drawbacks, I gladly shot test roll with it. Other cameras need some tweaks, but they reward me with higher image quality. It's always compromise.

I think this stems from Kodak's use of plastic lenses in their lower numbered cameras, and glass in the higher numbered ones. Such as with the X series of Instamatics, the -15,-25, and -30 all were plastic, while the -35 and -45 were glass. So the other manufacturers had to point out that they had glass lenses, to differentiate themselves from Kodak. And some manufacturers did only use glass in the front element.

PF

 

[btgc]

Good point, farlymac. Probably some cheaper Trip lines also had plastic lenses so Olympus had good reason to distinct updated series. For Trip 60/600 series among features text says "precision glass optics" which not the case for cheaper looking Trip XB series.