On 8 Jun 2004 at 21:45, David Miers wrote: > That's exactly what I've been thinking William, but I'm not quite up enough on > the technical details of digital cameras to comment much. Wasn't it just > discussed how Nikon lenses are sharper for the most part then Pentax?
Sorry I'm not Bill but try to get over this notion. The newer top line lenses are hairs apart WRT sharpness from most manufacturers. In days gone by some of the Nikon primes were designed to optimise sharpness at the expense of other less measurable factors such as bokeh. > What about > with the new photoshop CS or what ever it is that has the plugin for pentax raw > files? Would that make it more fair? Using the generic Bayer converter and lens would be a far more ideal situation for making meaningful comparisons between various camera systems. However I'm still not convinced that there is a problem regardless. > I'm getting the impression that with > Pentax raw files he used the included software? The files that I just posted for comparison were decoded in camera, from my observations and that of others the in-camera processing provides a near optimum edge result unlike the external Pentax RAW convertor. So it's difficult to draw any realistic conclusions when comparing these disparate image files. Cheers, 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
