racoll wrote:
Yes. It said, "POST blah, blah, CAT PHOTOS!
Actually it says more than cat photo's It says post the 85 1.2 versus the 1.8 but as we all know none of us but the goody goodies follow directions . But there has been plenty between the 85's here so what's the big deal posting with other lenses like my 24-70. Life is to short
racoll wrote:
Okay, I followed the rules this time. Here's one of Cricket from early last year, shot on a 20D with the 85 1.8 at 1/60, ISO 800, wide open.
Actually, yes. Foster was deaf. He was my sister's cat. Unfortunately, he was very old and had to be put down a few months ago. He was one of the best cats I've ever met - he behaved more like a dog than a cat.
I hadn't heard about two different eye colors being a marker for lack of hearing... That's really interesting. I'll have to mention it to my sister.
Actually, yes. Foster was deaf. He was my sister's cat. Unfortunately, he was very old and had to be put down a few months ago. He was one of the best cats I've ever met - he behaved more like a dog than a cat.
I hadn't heard about two different eye colors being a marker for lack of hearing... That's really interesting. I'll have to mention it to my sister.
In fact this can also be the case in humans. It really depends of the mutated gene, and not necessary 100% linked (ask David Bowie who got lucky on this one). For instance, human patients with Waardenburg syndrome (a rare disease affecting 1/30.000) have mutations in the pigment-controlling genes PAX3, SOX10 or MITF (pigmented cells called melanocytes regulate the color of the eye as well as hearing), and while most of them display heterochromia, about 50% of them are deaf, as a result of developmental defects in the melanocyte lineage... yes... when I do not take pictures I run a research laboratory working on these genes
. But there has been plenty between the 85's here so what's the big deal posting with other lenses like my 24-70. Life is to short 
