Alex wrote: > Don't forget that I shot these with a 24mm lens, so the depth of field > is very large. Even at f4.5 everything from about 15' to infinity > would be in focus, and nothing in most of these pictures is closer to > me that 15' away.
Good point. The 24mm should become a 36mm, while depth-of field must be conidered one stop less, hence pictures taken with the 24mm f/4.5 are like those taken at 36mm f/3.5, while 24mm f/11 is like 36mm f/8. However, I was expecting some more sharpness there (not more unsharp mask!). > http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax-istd/ has some other pictures > which were mostly shot right after I bought the camera. Most of these > have much less depth of field and the plane of focus is much more > obvious. True. > http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax-istd/IMGP1331.JPG is a suitable > example (shot with the A50/1.4, I think the focus distance was a few > inches). I find the center of the flower to be sharp but the depth of > field is under an inch so almost nothing else is (even the tips of the > flower). True. > > Not to speak of the dynamic range: clouds in direct light should look as > > being 3D, not like painted in watercolor as they look. > > And what about the color balance? Greys of distant rocks must be tones of > > grey (not pinkish as they are in IMGP1412), while the sky looks unnatural > > cyan... > > That is my fault, I accidentally shot for most of the day with the > camera's white balance set to flourescent and didn't correct this > before posting them. I had hoped to retake some of the pictures on > the hike back down after doing this, but it started raining by that > time. OK Well, I feel a bit better now :-) So I only need to test that *ist D coming soon against a good DLSR (same pix in same situations) and then decide if Pentax is still worth my bucks. Work for the coming weekend, I suppose. Dario
