Nope, Anthony! I meant what I said, but perhaps I express my self badly in English. By "ahead" I actually meant "before" the object or closer to the camera. By "behind" I meant between the object and infinity. I guess we are really trying to say the same thing :-).
Anyway, I have never done photographs whith the *ist D, where the margins of focus was so narrow, that I have noticed any focusing problems. Perhaps I should do some testing? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 14. december 2004 05:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: *istD auto focus woes Jens, I think you meant 1/3 AHEAD and 2/3 BEHIND the focusing distance. It's easy to verify this. Look at the DOF scale on a lens (you'll probably need an old lens to check this) and you'll see that the far-side limit of DOF encompasses more metres, feet or furlongs (as is your wont) between itself and the focusing mark, than falls between the near-side limit of DOF and the focusing mark. regards, Anthony Farr > -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > An old rule of thumb used to be, that the DOF lies 1/3 behind and 2/3 ahead > of the focusing distance. So I guess a little behind is perhaps better than > a little ahead :-). > > Jens Bladt >
