«

In article <g1aabd$cum$>, Doug McDonald
<> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>>> That still works fine on my Canon 30D.
>>>
>> It only gives you a rough idea, but always understates the level of
>>isolation, so if you are trying to do anything critical, it is
>>virtually useless.
>
>I have always found that it works quite well for background isolation
>purposes. It worked well on my Minolta SRT101, and works well on my
>Canon 30D.
>
If you are interested in testing its accuracy then you will find it
works a lot better in your Minolta SRT101 than it does in your Canon 30D
- for the reasons I gave earlier.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <g1bokb$p8q$>, lid writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> If you are interested in testing its accuracy then you will find it
>>works a lot better in your Minolta SRT101 than it does in your Canon
>>30D - for the reasons I gave earlier.
>
>That's not true.

Yes it is, and I suggest you make some tests. I, and others, have.
>
>In any case, you are wrong:
>
"In any case"? That would include the case that I am right. You
clearly have bigger problems than the use of the DoF preview button.

>the 30D's viewfinder absolutely is good enough.
It may be good enough for what YOU want it for. It certainly ISN'T good
enough for what it was intended or any critical DoF control. By
contrast, the Minolta that you referred to was far superior.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)