How does the *ist D's overall image quality compare to Fuji Reala 100 shot with a sharp prime, such as:
-- Pentax-F 50/1.7 -- Tamron 90/2.5 Macro -- Pentax-M 135/3.5 -- Kiron 28/2.0 -- Kiron-made Vivitar 20/3.8 (screwmount) Most film/digital comparisons I've seen compare scanned film to digital, but I'm more interested in how printouts of digital (at Costco, on Fuji Crystal Archive) compare to film prints (also at Costco, on Fuji Crystal Archive). I'm not a pro; I shoot mostly family, and some landscapes and other nature shots when camping etc. I have a ZX-L (with ZX-M focusing screen -- mmmm, split-image) and a Super Program. After comparing several films I settled on Fuji Reala 100 because I like the sharpness, fine grain, and colors. But looking at how much I'm spending on film and processing, it wouldn't take all that long for an *ist D to pay for itself. If I put the 50F/1.7 on the ZX-L and shoot a frame with Fuji Reala 100, then put the 50F/1.7 on the *ist D, set it on ISO 200 (its lowest setting) 3008 x 2008 (its highest resolution), and RAW, back up so that the subject is about the same size as it was with the ZX-L, shoot a frame, sharpen the image in software, then have Costco print both (film and digital) on Fuji Crystal Archive at 4x6, 5x7, 8x12, and 12x18, how would you estimate they would compare? Also, will the ZX-M's focusing screen fit in the *ist D? If not, is there any other way to get a split-image focusing screen into the *ist D? Thanks, Greg
