Sheesh, Paul, you seem to be taking this rather personally. All I'm trying to do is get an understanding of what you consider to be fine detail. We clearly see that differently. Hey, if you're happy with the lens, and it works for what you photograph, then be happy. But there's no need to start name calling .... sheesh! I sent an example of what I consider fine detail, made with the 16-45. It was the best results I could get with the lens - tripod mounted, stopped down a bit, using the self time or MLU function.
Anyway, chill out ... maybe you've had too much caffeine this morning, so I'll forgive you ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Date: 8/24/2006 5:00:24 AM > Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards > > More doo-doo. Let's see an example then from the master. Pretentious BS > doesn't make your argument valid. > > > On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > That's not fine detail, either .... > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Paul Stenquist > > > >> Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a > >> small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up > >> the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens > >> can > >> deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform > >> at > >> 10 megapixels remains to be seen. > >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553&size=lg > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
