Why not drop me a PM and let me know whereabouts in Lancashire you are?

Thanks for sharing the journey with us!

I hope you have a great time with your IIs, I'm itching to get my hands on one, but might have to wair for a K-5 failure to justify it. Hopefully a IIs will come my way for a short while so I can complete the answers to the questions raised in my review of the II. I've already shot a really, really tough shot on the II that is just crying out to induce moire. A comparison with the IIs would show something interesting hopefully.

I know someone who has already shot several hundred shots with the IIs and not aq sign of a moire problem, but apparently superb sharpness and detail. Looking forward to seeing what you think as you get to use it, and perhaps some examples?

I don't mind avatars, they tell us a little bit about thw writer, either what they look like, or what they like to project as an image of themselves. We could analyse that I suppose, so learning a tiny bit about a writer.

I'm not so keen on moving, garish avatars because they just annoy after a while, which if it affects you that way just might predispose your feelings about what is being written.

As for long signatures, apart from their use actually being contrary to the Terms of Use, they are allowed in unless totally ludicrous. However, they simply detract from what is being written, so dilute whatever statement is being made.

That makes good sense. Isn't it something to do with the angle of the etching of the grain structure?

I wonder if the depth of focus (that is, relating to the accuracy with which the screen position is placed) is small enough to make it an issue. Yet another potential source of error.

Maybe off topic, but it is important. sledger did have a problem, which he wouldn't have if he'd formatted his cards. Old, unwanted file structures gradually reduce the amount of space on a card. The DCIM folder that caused the problem wouldn't have been there.

It was via an adapter, but cannot recall if it was HDMI. It seems likely it could have been.

Later versions of iPad may be better.

I would suggest that what you are describing here is the impossibility of judging DOF on a tiny focusing screen. Obviously the more you enlarge a picture the more it will show how far out our judgement was.

When manually focusing we are not judging DOF, we are looking for the sharpest image we can perceive. This is a combination of actual sharpness and also contrast. Our eyes are quite good at judging a combination of these factors, depending upon individual eyesight.

This seems to me to be a totally different subject, there is no DOF at the focusing screen anyway. The DOF is in the subject and the screen is merely where the lens projects its image.

It's not generally relevant anyway to modern AF lenses in general use, and probably only serves to confuse.

It's always nice to have a look back at a previous shoot, here's a selection of Becky that I missed out first time around:

We found one pitfall when someone wanted to use a digital projector with the original iPad. It can be coupled up, but the output to the projector was atrociously bad quality.

If this is likely to be an issue it might be worth checking out, after which a laptop may still be the answer in some cases.

Thinkling about screens, Zeiss used to supply a pink tinged screen for the Contarex, designed to make focusing their new 18mm lens easier.

So screens do matter. Focusing aids such as split images will not work well with small apertures or with long lenses. Plain screens are generally better.