11-26-2010, 10:08 AM
Hi Klaus,
Just a quick apology if my comments at the other forum came over hyper critical, They were not meant as such.
But people commented on the tone of what I said so I think an apology is in order.
What I actually meant was I couldn't see how you achieved a figure of max 2500 when other sources for the same lw/ph chart clearly show real data heading towards 2650.
I understand your 2350 figure but personally think you've gone well into the false positive realm but as we say its all pretty subjective. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
It would appear to me applying the same criteria as applied to your k10d figure would see the k5 hitting 2800 with a vanishing point around 3000.
As I can easily see false detail well past 2800.
Just a quick apology if my comments at the other forum came over hyper critical, They were not meant as such.
But people commented on the tone of what I said so I think an apology is in order.
What I actually meant was I couldn't see how you achieved a figure of max 2500 when other sources for the same lw/ph chart clearly show real data heading towards 2650.
I understand your 2350 figure but personally think you've gone well into the false positive realm but as we say its all pretty subjective. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />It would appear to me applying the same criteria as applied to your k10d figure would see the k5 hitting 2800 with a vanishing point around 3000.
As I can easily see false detail well past 2800.