Subject: | Re: [OM] DoF Compared |
---|---|
From: | Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:20:50 -0500 |
> I really don't have any desire to spec such a test since I'm not sure I > could and I don't really care if you're correct or not. My only point > was that... you haven't proven your point... at least with that test case. OK. And from my perspective, I guess it is impossible for me to prove my point because no matter what I do to present it you aren't going to buy it. That's why I asked you to define a test that YOU would be satisfied seeing the results from and I'd do it. (Notice that I'm avoiding taking on the theoretical claims of 35mm format trumping smaller formats for landscape photography--I'll be happy to see your test results on that one) AG -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] OT Da Weddin', Moose |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] DoF Compared, Joel Wilcox |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] DoF Compared, Chuck Norcutt |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] DoF Compared, Joel Wilcox |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |