On 28 May 2004 at 7:49, Peter Loveday wrote: > Either way, I don't have a problem with the cost. > > I have no feel for how good this software is yet, not having used it. But it > seems unlikely they could market a product that does nothing but raw conversion > and have it be as bad as Photoshop CS's raw convertor. If it is good, it is > worth paying for in its own right. Would I pay $250 for a good sharp lens to > improve my image quality, or a good tripod? Hell yes.. Because its a software > tool, rather than a piece of physical equipment, seems to somehow devalue it. > As far as I'm concerned, if it can improve the quality of a picture, then its a > tool like any other. And I can garruntee no one will be offering me an upgrade > on my lens to something faster or better for $50 next year, either :)
What I have a problem with is what can only be construed as deliberate under engineering or disabling so as to provide a path to future revenues. The *ist D stinks of this a little. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
