Originally posted by Christine Tham LOL.
And we seem to have a few misguided males (I'm assuming they are males) trying to argue with a woman how big their CoC is. It's the "apparent" size that counts, not the formula that indicates how big it oughtta be :-)
myself i never argue with a woman; i know i'll lose. Where it hurts.
i quite like this thread, it has everything in it including very lovely and generally very informative contributions by many of the people worth reading on these forums, and even long explanations from our resident scientific brain falconeye which always deepens my knowledge.
Fine with me it drifts off the specific topic here and there, it's still very much a good read abt photography.
i can save up enough for either a K-5 or the Q with a couple of the extra lenses, not both. And i'm torn. Espesh after spending a few nights downtown grabbing people shots.
i did finally score an FA 50mm f1.4. Still testing that and trying to decide whether i should adjust its microfocus specifically for tungsten. The thing'll certainly add to my speed and cut down on blurry shots from bad MF.
i find that under very low light conditions my eye front focuses just like the K-5 AF is known to do.
i guess we'll have to see what the Q contrast detect AF is like in low light. My A650 and Sony DSC-R1 (both contrast detect AF) remain quite accurate in those conditions, but are very slow. And both producing large amounts of very unsightly night time image noise.
The A650IS handheld SR is useful for me to abt 1/10s, that of the K-7 mebbe 1/20s. Hoping the Q will be closer to the former. As far as DoF, with my type of shooting more is better.