Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: f16 - too soft?  (Read 8439 times)

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2014, 08:16:59 pm »

Sorry, I didn't reference the LULA article on T/S.

That was John MacLean.

When I acquired my 24TSE three years ago, I posted an image on Naturescapes (I had been trying to use tables).  I received a reply from Royce Howland (one of the Naturescapes editors), and adopted the method.

No tables, no tape measures, just LV and focusing.  It's so dumb-a$$ simple it still amazes me.

Glenn
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 08:18:40 pm by Glenn NK »
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2014, 08:27:10 pm »

Sorry, I didn't reference the LULA article on T/S.

That was John MacLean.

When I acquired my 24TSE three years ago, I posted an image on Naturescapes (I had been trying to use tables).  I received a reply from Royce Howland (one of the Naturescapes editors), and adopted the method.

No tables, no tape measures, just LV and focusing.  It's so dumb-a$$ simple it still amazes me.

Glenn

Well, whatever works for the individual, I guess. I think the table method is dumb ass simple. I tried iterative methods for years. Sometimes it worked fine in a few minutes, but often it took a half hour or more for a single shot. With a simple chart and a measurement, I get it right the first time, usually, unless I look in the wrong focal length column.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up