There's this:

Polarizer - Camerapedia.org

Linear polarizing filters seem to have a greater effect on the final image than circular polarizers do, and in spite of many misconceptions, you can use either type of filter on any camera. But there is a catch: if you use a linear polarizer on a modern camera, you may not be able to use your built-in metering, or autofocus, or possibly both.

Modern autofocus systems use mirrors that act as beam-splitters: most of the light is reflected to the viewfinder for metering and viewing, while the rest (typically 25%) is transmitted and then reflected by a secondary mirror to the autofocus sensor, which is in the camera body. With a polarizing filter attached, the ratio of reflected/transmitted light (fixed for non-polarized light) varies with the polarization plane orientation of polarized light, relative to the beam-splitter, causing the amount of light reaching the autofocus sensor to vary. This effect can be particularly troublesome if your front element moves with the lens, as it would cause the amount of light reaching the sensor to change while the lens focuses.

While you can see (rather easily) when your autofocus system has been confused by a linear polarizer, there isn't such an easy way of knowing whether or not the internal light metering system has been stumped. The same loss of light principles that affect the autofocus system can also affect a camera's built-in meter, and obviously this is never good. What use is a light meter if it receives the wrong amount of light?

In both situations, a circular polarizer corrects the problem. Having removed the effect of linear polarization, the light functions normally inside the camera, in the beam splitter, and reaching the autofocus and metering sensors properly. Therefore, for your convenience, you should use a circular polarizer if your camera has autofocus or built-in light metering features. However, if you focus manually, and use a hand-held light meter, you can use a linear polarizer on any camera you wish.

(Though I'm pretty sure that when I got the described effect in the past, I had no autofocus on.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Sorry for the late reply, but I would agree with Colman.  I don't think the photo particularly lacks sharpness due to your technique or the lens given the distances involved.  The crop looks pretty good.  I've been reading quite a bit about sharpening lately (interesting if you're really into producing top notch output from digital files). The author of one book devoted exclusively to sharpening states that all digital files need sharpening prior to printing whether produced from digital cameras or scanned film. (Sometimes the in camera processing or the camera's automatic anti-aliasing (smoothing) filer, contributes to the apparent lack of sharpness.  Unfortunately, the processes he recommends are not easily explained in limited spaces, but they are generally covered in some fashion in most good Photoshop books. Suffice it to say simply use of Photoshop's unsharp mask is unlikely to produce optimal results; however, the detail section of Adobe Camera Raw contains a sharpening feature that offers quite a bit of control and good results if one educates him/herself on it's proper use.  I previously recommended a book by Scott Kelby, but I see he has a newer, but much thinner book out on using Photoshops raw converter for those who do not wish to become bogged down in all the nuances of the full Photoshop.  I had a copy of Adobe's new Lightroom software during its Beta testing and used it extensively over a period of several months.  I think the raw converter in Photoshop, though not as extensive and lacking file organizing capabilities, compares favorably with Lightroom and probably Apple's Aperture as well.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

Maybe the problem was your expectation that the polarizer would remove the haze?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

Right you are - and it is next to the Millennium Centre and the building you can see on the left in the picture is the pierhead building.

The North East of Turkey is on my list of places to visit. and a bizzare miniature theme park sounds like somewhere to add to my list.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

I used to go a lot to the old Memorial Stadium in the late 70's and early 80's when the Orioles had the great teams managed by Earl Weaver when Cal Ripkin was just starting. I must say that I preferred the old stadiums without the huge TV screens in center field, but then I go back to the old Ebbets Field in Brooklyn in the 40's and 50's.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

I have no excuse, the outfield view of Camden Yards is one of the most famous in baseball, even though it has only been around for what, 15 years?

you are the media you consume.

I don't know that, aside from the name, "Vogue" magazine is French in origin, but many of the fashions contained therein were.  Perhaps more importantly, the style of these Vogue covers from the 20's was Art Deco, a term originating from the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris in 1925 and was a movement with its origins in France.  So the name "Vogue", the premiere designers like Chanel and Patou, and style of the depiction of these fashions, Art Deco - all pretty freaking French.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

Because most of the mental images I have of the '20s (and, I'd bet, of most other readers of this blog aged under 80) come from movies...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

Jérôme beat me on the Nancy tram-bus because he was on-line and I wasn't -- I was away making those cave, castle and train pictures you find in Photo Blog #31 :-)

Finding the exact location based on the tables wasn't that easy (har har!), because none of the internet maps I know had (all) the street names in Thillombois. I had to Google addresses on those streets for confirmation.

The above photo of the bridge (across which I travelled) I place here, but with the hint that was easy indeed.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}