It may be you, but you're not unique. David J Brooks wrote: > So its not just me then. I thought so to. > > Dave > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:56 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have to say I agree with the other comments, the grass seems to be in >> perfect focus. >> >> >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> > Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. >> > >> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 >> > >> > Two things here. >> > First: I'm training Grace to be a placekicker in the NFL. Note the >> > perfect form. Hand out for balance. Head down. She's a natural. >> > >> > Second: Shot this with the obviously defective DA* 16-50/2.8 . Looks >> > okay, doesn't it? And most shots will. Real world shooting doesn't >> > always reveal defects. But someday when shooting a nearly flat scene >> > wide open, one side of the shot will be a bit soft. The lens costs >> > far too much to tolerate that kind of performance. Sometimes it's >> > good to test. But only rarely:-). >> > Paul >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... >> -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> > > > >
-- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
