> Unsharp mask - now there's a can of worms. See you can do more of it > in camera, or you can do more later. Your choice. I prefer to do mine > later cause it can be undone. <GRIN> Yes. Unsharp masking is a one-way degredation process. If the camera manufacturer really gives a camera with better (more accurate) focussing then fine, it's an improvement. If what they actually do is build in an algorithm (you can't turn off) that does an in-camera sharpening to make the output *look* sharper - as they already do with consumer cameras - it's a bad day. > As to the Rebel, it apparently has many auto modes but lacks some > switches. For example to get servo auto focus you need to go to sports > mode, you can't switch it on. However, this is all conjecture. We don't have the "Rebel" but we do have "bottom of the range" equivalents and they don't all aloow the photographer to operate in manual mode. > I don't know where you get your information, but with millions of 10d > out there, if a few are less than perfect, don't think that most of > them aren't. I've been shooting birds in flight so I know how well it > can focus. And unlike the cost of film, you just keep (*) shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting till you get a good one Ain't digital wonderful ;o) Bob (*) PS: my astronomer colleague does exactly this now with his telescope. Hundreds of "exposures" in rapid succession then software rejects the (atmosphere) distorted ones. Sum the good ones for high res. planet shots ...
