I knew that I had to stop before raising all this nonsense again. Now I don't only have to ask myself either "Will this hurt WRobb?" or "Will this hurt Shel?" every time I'm posting to the list (for opposite reasons, BTW, since Wrobb is disturbed when I'm not enough happy with the *istD, and Shel is usully disturbed when I'm too happy with the *istD, vs. film). Now it looks like I'll also have to think "Will this hurt Rob?"
I believe that when I'll be able to stop all this, I'll unsubscribe, so that I'll no longer hurt too sensible folks (and it will be the first time since 1997, excluding short vacations). Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:14 AM Subject: Re: F24-50 > On 28 Oct 2004 at 20:16, Dario Bonazza wrote: > > > On the contrary, I was desperately looking for someone capable to proof I > > was wrong, but I mostly got irritated comments, hence I believe I was > > disturbing those who don't like the doubt they are less than clever. And > > those few show up again and again... > > If you are citing the over-sharpened eye section that you presented the other > day as proof of the *ist D capabilities then I'm far from surprised that no one > had anything definite or positive to say. Gauging your example against the > results that I can produce now I would not have been happy with your result and > I don't think it was of any value trying to guess what camera lens combination > lead to the creation of the image. > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
