I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly.
Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for smaller prints)? Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Thanks. Dario Bonazza ----- Original Message ----- From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Pentax High End DSLR > I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and two afternoons. > > Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. > > Joe > >
