GMB
Active member
Yes.Semana Santa?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yes.Semana Santa?
Too bad that all 4 inches of sharpness (F4) is behind the point he focused on.well another ruler test shows that @ 1.4 you have about 2.5 inches of sharpness and @ f4 you have 4 inches of it..
WOW
With all due respects, if you focus on the same location and, depending upon the aperture used & distance from the subject, the shot isn't exactly in focus where you expected it to be then it isn't the shooter's bad technique. If that's the characteristics of the lens then you learn quickly over time how to adjust for it manually by changing where you actually set the focus so that you get the desired result (I'll call it the Lee Travino approach to photography - i.e. if you hook the ball left, aim right ... :ROTFL. However, if you're shooting portraits quickly at different apertures it definitely IS annoying to capture sharp noses or ears when you KNOW that you had focus on the eye. You can argue about the artistic merits as to whether it matters for some shots or not but it remains a frustration if you focus on X and end up with an image focused sharply on Y - some of the time. :wtf:I would hazzad a guess that ensuring rangefinder is calibrated correctly and improving an individual's technique pays benefits - perhaps enough to reconsider cursing the (now) 'old' lux for deficiencies that are inconsistent and (IMHO) minor in practical useage situations.