Hallo Dario, you have done a good job on *istD to S2 comparision. It is not obvious on your home page, what camera gives the more natural colors as the colors are very different, you should at that. It would be also nice, if you can inform about the sharpness, contrast and color setings on the *istD. If you look at the flowerpicture on the balcony, the S2 show sharpening artefacts around the black metal, the *istD has less sharpening. Was the sharpening of the *istD to +1 or was it zero?
You complain at the results with the RAW files. At a german user forum somebody has done a test with the Pentax Photo Lab and GENZO, a free RAW format converter. Here you can see the results in form ot two different pictures: http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?p=39108#39108 The gonzo is far better. Here you can dounload genzo: http://members2.tsukaeru.net/rawdeco/genzo/genzo_download.htm Maybe the bad Pentax Photo Lab is the reason, that the raw pictures did not give better results. regards R�diger Von: Dario Bonazza 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Dear folks, > >As I promised some time ago, here are comparison pictures taken with the >*ist D and the S2 Pro. >Original pictures, untouched, are available, so that you can download and >try to improve them (adjusting color balance and adding proper sharpening) >according to your taste. > >After using both cameras and comparing more than 100 pictures, taken with >many different lenses, my opinion is as follows: > >1) The Pentax beatens the Fuji (by far!) about handling, viewfinder and >color accuracy. > >2) The Fuji beatens (by far!) the Pentax about image resolution, sharpness >and plasticity. > >3) With some PC processing, it is rather easy to improve above difference, >further increasing the S2 Pro advantage. Believe it or not, despite images >taken with the S2 already feature more unsharp mask than those taken with >the *ist, they usually accept more additional sharpening before showing >excessive sawteeth (like having more pixels!). > >4) Shooting in RAW mode is only useful with buildings and the like, adding >some visible sharpness. Should you save in RAW format images with plenty of >leaves and branches, then you'll get excessive sawteeth and leaves look fake >(unless you set low contrast and sharpening during conversion to tiff/jpeg, >but then there's no good reason to use RAW). > >5) The Fuji features better dynamic range (look at the curch front in the >shade) and marginally better graininess (lower noise) at higher ISO settings >(look at the enlargements of studio shots at different sensitivity >settings). > >OK, at long last, here is the link: > >http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p1e.htm > >Bye, > >Dario Bonazza > > >
