> > On 7 Jun 2004 at 11:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'd expect image quality to be at least *istD quality. Hopefully, > > experience will make it better as the *istD is arguably the worst > > of the DSLRs in image sharpness. > > According to reviewers or users? I've no problems with it's sharpness, with the > right lens it's down to theoretical limits and in at least one test that I've > seen it showed the least problems with aliasing of all its contemporary > competition.
There's a significant group of people who feel that the *ist-D is arguably the *best* of the DSLRs in image sharpness. More is *not* synonymous with better. If you _want_ the significantly-sharpened-straight-out-of-the-camera you are forced to accept from other DSLRs you can always crank the in-camera sharpening up to the maximum value. But if you're going to do any sort of image editing between exposure and print or display you're far better off turning sharpening down (or, at the least, leaving it at the default setting) and applying any sharpening filters as the final step. You have to (re-)sharpen anyway if you resize the image, and there's no point in introducing extra sharpening artifacts.
