Subject: | Re: [OM] Good bokah, bad bokah? |
---|---|
From: | Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 02 May 2003 18:24:58 -0700 |
Wonderful examples which clarify your point emphatically and give a
really clear example of good and bad bokeh with the same subject. I can
sure see where a digital body would encourage this kind of testing with
the lack of incremental cost and the instant results. I don't think I'm
going to do anything rash before I see what the Oly 4/3 system looks
like and/or prices come down on the Can*n DSLRs.
I think you should be appointed Grand Poobah of Bokeh by the list. :-) Moose C.H.Ling wrote: Ok, originally I want to perform the test on 50mm first but I now I do it for 200mm first, below is the result: <snip> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [OM] OM-4 wish list, Gary L. Edwards |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [OM] OM2S baseplate, Matt Bays |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Good bokah, bad bokah?, Joel Wilcox |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Good bokah, bad bokah?, Chris Barker |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |