I take back the 300%, my software enlarged them to fit the page. It's closer to 450% on my screen.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 2:58 PM > To: PDML > Subject: HELP! DA vs 28s-One More Time. (longish) > > > OK, here's that roof again. > 2 shots with the DA 16-45/4 at 4.0 > 1 with the M 28/3.5 at 3.5 > 1 with the A 28/2.8 at 2.8 > All upsized to 300% > All treated *exactly* the same way from exposure to web. > > http://tinyurl.com/4axt4 > > **I CAN SEE, in the viewfinder, (with the 2x) detail in > the shingles *far above* what shows in the DA samples! > Both of the 28s give me what I expect, but not the DA. > > If someone else had processed these for me I would have > accused them of intentionaly blurring the DA samples! > > I'm at a total loss to explain how I can see a highly > detailed image in the viewfinder with all three lenses > but only two of them give a detailed final result. > > > Rob, in one of your posts you said: > > "Har told ya, also I suspect any visual focus error on > the DA is likely due to a spherical field of focus." > > What exactly does that mean? > Can a viewfinder and focus confirmation signal actually > be wrong for one lens and OK for others? > A D viewfinder is too small to be really critical, but > with the 2x magnifier detail in the roof is very clear. > > I used the 2x for all shots on all three lenses. > I used a sturdy tripod, placed the same for each. > I used mirror pre-fire for all of them. > I used 1/2000 or 1/4000 shutter speeds. > 3 were focused manually, on the DA shot labeled > "Take Three" I allowed the D to autofocus, it missed. > I even focused ahead of and behind the lower pipe to > see if it made a difference, it did, all those shots > were worse, DA and 28s alike. > I am 100% certain these are correctly focused and > camera shake is not a factor. > Lighting is a bit different in the M shot. > > What the Heck is going on here??????? > > Don > > > > >
