I do want to take issue though with (uh oh, here it comes..) some misinformation on page 8 of this month's issue (June '07). The writer mis-defines two terms:
Depth of field
Depth of focus
When I learned photography back in the (who said "1800's"?) sixties, the terms were used synomonously. Sometime later, I heard it used to mean the area of apparent focus between the lens and the focal plane.
Also, depth of field has always included the area in front and behind the subject that is in apparent focus, though you allowed an incorrect definition to slip onto your normally error-free pages. I don't understand how this error was allowed to go to print. You guys apparently used C&C's proofreader for this article! X-D
It seems that Wikipedia agrees with me on these terms:
While the phrase depth of focus was historically used, and is sometimes still used, to mean depth of field, in modern times it is more often reserved for the image-side depth. Depth of field is a measurement of depth of acceptable sharpness in the object space, or subject space. Depth of focus, however, is a measurement of how much distance exists behind the lens wherein the film plane will remain sharply in focus. It can be viewed as the flip side of depth of field, occurring on the opposite side of the lens.
How about a correction in the next issue?
Oh, I've got another bone to pick, about Charlie calling a three thousand dollar computer (that we could build for under a thousand - "Overall, this is a very powerful computer at a reasonable price point."
"Reasonable?" Hmmm. I think not. And Charlie, you were so polite and subtle about how they screwed up the configuration. I think Gateway should have fired the goof who configured this for you. And you know I just shine with subtlety and politeness X-D
