| Subject: | [OM] Re: Are blurred pictures any good? |
|---|---|
| From: | Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:27:37 -0400 |
Too bad you guys don't count! :-) Chuck Norcutt Chris Barker wrote: > Well it works for me. If the mother had been in focus as well it > would have been a little difficult to look at, given that the baby's > head partly obscures the mother's. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [OM] OM2n (selftimer ?) problem, Guillaume Remy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [OM] Re: OM mount, Chuck Norcutt |
| Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Are blurred pictures any good?, Chris Barker |
| Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Are blurred pictures any good?, Wayne Culberson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |