Despite this lots of the shots came out fine, but enough didn't and with a possible faulty lens that I'm still staying on the fence about the need for recalibration. Here's one where focus wasn't spot on, but it's a big "aaah" sort of picture to give you a warm and fuzzy glow.
To finish today's entry on a positive note, the aforementioned Craig took systematic sets of test shots — 144 in all — with different lenses, two apertures, raw and JPG to check the "reset effect". He found no before and after difference, but I thought you'd be interested in his assessment:
Seven-point AF is a little inconsistent in choice, choosing different sensors from frame to frame, despite the subject remaining unchanged. MF was better on average. The camera is not consistently, deadly accurate using the central AF sensor but is, on average, more accurate than my eyesight! It seems the AF module is not as finely tuned as the higher end cameras.
Conclusion: 10D AF is faster and more accurate than D60, especially, at low light levels (without AF assist). As you said, "camera works as expected".
Craig also added:
At normal sharpening, 10D appears not as sharpened as D60 images. Can't be absolutely certain on this one without a side by side comparison.
Setting degrees Kelvin from my Minolta Colormeter produced perfect neutral grey, without modification at 4300 degrees flash f/16, 4100 degrees flash f/4, 2800 degrees tungsten 1/3sec f/4 all at ISO100.
And ended his e-mail to me with the gung ho:
That's it I'm done lab testing, all further tests done live and by the seat of my pants.
