warrenb

<p>Thanks for taking time to respond. Yes, 1968 was a good year! I looked great in diapers (still do). It's a good point and well noted that perhaps I have not put that much effort IN to photo.net lately, but isn't everything supposed to be about ME ME ME. . .? (HA). Don't get annoyed, I'm not a chronic whiner. I just was wondering if anyone else felt that the ol' site was getting a little big. I guess my main point was I used to feel that I was sharing my photos with lots of other photogs, but now it seems I post and I'm the only one looking. (Boo Hoo, poor me). <br>

Anyway, thanks for engaging. I guess I'll stick around because. . ."You like me. . .you really really like me". . . </p>

<p>I remember when I joined photo.net and loved velvia and my RB67. I learned so much on this site and ended up following so many talented photographers. I remember thinking digital was never really going to match film. Anyway, I have great memories of this site. But now I ask you. . .has this site gotten too big? In 2004, I posted a crop of some poinsettias that I shot with my RB67. Nice photo, nothing great. It got almost 21,000 views, (yes that's thousands). When I asked for critique, I usually learned a lot from the many who responded. Now, I post a photo, and if I don't ask for a critique, I'm lucky to get 2 views. . .with a critique request, maybe 10-50 with one comment. I know I'm not as good as those getting the high ratings, etc, but does anyone else who has been here for a while feel like this site has lost something?<br /> Anyway, not looking for hatemail and "make better pictures" comments, but just curious if anyone else is feeling nostalgic for 2001.</p>

Thank you Jim. That is what I am doing. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't completely crazy or stupid (although, some reading these threads may think I am both).

Optimum, fine, but even at f/16 don't you think this should be a little sharper?

OK, how bout this one at 100%? 24-105/4L f/16, 1/8, mirror-up, tripod, etc. Does this look like 5D sharp?

Why won't this go inline?

Here it is. sorry.

OK, maybe my test was flawed, but does this seem like a good enough image quality from a 5D? 24-105/4L f/16 ISO100 Sharpness increased on camera, unsharp mask, tripod, mirror up, etc.

didn't try a manual focus. got it at B&H.

both raw, both processed with same, saved parmeters. same exposure.

Seriously, I need someone to tell me if I'm crazy. My new 5D came out of the

box today and I was less than impressed with the images. Soft focus everywhere.

I was beginning to think I was a worse photographer with better equipment. Then

i did my little experiment. A few weeks ago I did a closeup with my 10D and

100/2.8 USM macro and took a photo of a coin. Today I repeated the conditions

(as close as possible) with the same lens/exposure with the 5D. Here are the

results. Please tell me what to do. I'm balled up in a corner right now sucking

my thumb in the fetal position with a serious case of buyers (or suckers)

remorse.