Jostein wrote:
That would have to be a trauma of seismic proportions. Shutter speed was 1/4000 at f/2.8.
8-(((
To tell you the truth, I cannot recall the last time I used any lens except the FA*400/5.6 at full opening.
:-\
Jostein
----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
Jostein wrote:
Don,
1. In the photoshop settings, set "units & rulers" to show as pixels.
Then you can use the info pane to gauge the exact size of your selection. Once the size of the selection is right, it's easy to position the "marching ants" to match your previous selections. Actually I discovered this method while preparing this page. If you look at the first set of crops, they're not of equal size.
After doing one ny just aiming, I realised I had to be more systematic...:-)
2. No. I was shocked to see how poorly it performed. I think I might have to repeat the exercise for this lens with all apertures.
Looks like a severe case of tripod trauma. 8-) The example I borrowed a few years ago was always an excellent performer - I suspect you would have noticed a problem such as this if it was not an occasional aberration.
m
Jostein
----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
An excellent comparison Jostein, much more 'scientific' than mine.
-----Original Message----- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 6:42 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Another test of DA 16-45/4 against other Pentax glass
http://www.oksne.net/tests/watest/watest.html
