Very good point. Should have thought of that. AAMOF, I know someone in that category.

She's very keen on the whole manual focus, manual exposure thing. Access to lots of good cheap lenses, with the added benefit of SR, makes her a prime candidate for switching to Pentax.

It would be interesting to know how.

As in, what exactly didn't they like about their Nikon gear, and what it was about Pentax that encouraged them to change.

It is, after all, quite a big deal, changing systems.

Fair enough... interesting results then.

Got any evidence for this?

This assertion has been around for years, but I think it's been fairly comprehensively debunked.

I mean, obviously don't go firing the thing into the poor kid's eyes from two inches away. But you wouldn't do that to yourself, either.

I think this one is a bit of an urban myth.

A couple of articles on the subject (but DYOR)...

http://www.sublime-light.com/index.php/2007/09/17/will-flash-damage-babies-sensi...

--

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16411/is-camera-flash-actually-harmful-...


Seriously, don't you think that if it was a real risk, we'd be inundated with health warnings from a) the nanny state and b) all the flashgun makers desperate to avoid lawsuits?

Is it possible that those that experience the best sharpness with the lens only slightly stopped down are misinterpreting their results?

Clearly, diffraction isn't going to be contributing significantly to any erosion in image quality from F5.6, say, to F11 or more.

Depth of field, and indeed lack of aberrations, are both going to be improved with a smaller hole in the middle, and both these effects would lead one to expect that IQ would improve, not deteriorate, down to moderate apertures.

Therefore, it seems likely to me that those reporting the best sharpness with lenses only slightly stopped down, are probably getting the benefit of the first stop or so of improvement that you get when the lens is no longer wide open, coupled with the least amount of camera shake, that you get with wide apertures and hence short exposures.

Feel free to shoot me down in flames with actual evidence, such as MTF charts, or where the images concerned have had shake rigorously eliminated as a contribution to lack of sharpness, but till then, my money would be on just a little camera shake being the main contributory factor as the lens gets stopped down.

--------------------------------------

Edit: note to self: read earlier posts more thoroughly. Ken's comment is the sort of evidence I mean. What about non-DA glass? Do the charts suggest the same sort of thing?

______________________________________

Further edit: Ok, supposing it's true, even for DA lenses, why is it true?

My tip would be not to show the pictures to anyone except the parents.

This is because there are two groups of viewers.

One consists of the parents, to whom the child in question is obviously and unarguably the most beautiful baby of any species that has ever appeared on planet Earth.

The other group consists of everyone else, who are mostly too polite to tell the truth.

Of course they won't, George.

I know we're not supposed to admit that there are any silly questions on the forum, but if anyone were to belie the legend, 'twould be you.

Very nice. If I was to hazard a couple of minor comments, I'd say that timing-wise, the second one (is it a Dakota?) would have been better just a shade earlier, which would have given you more wing and fuselage detail. Leading edge shots leave me wanting to see a little more.

The shot of the Bristol and Fokker has got good detail, but it suffers from the impersonal feel you get when the cockpits are entirely out of view. Tricky to light well when they're overhead so that's worked well.

I like the Vampire very much, though. Lovely with the sunlight on it, and perfectly exposed for the aeroplane, not the sky behind.

It does if you remove the trailing full stop.

Love it !!