> > On 16 Jun 2004 at 14:57, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > > > Interesting comparison - analog *ist vs *istD for these, who would like to > > print directly from digital :-) Oh, and Herbert has bought *istD too ;-) > > http://popphoto.com/article.asp?print_page=y§ion_id=2&article_id=964&pag > > e_number=1&preview= > > I wonder if he has learned to use it properly yet? I found it amazing that he > compared colour casts between the film and digital prints when he had knowingly > set the *ist D to AWB. Secondly his latitude comparison would have been a > little more realistic if he had set the *ist D to closer match the film ie > contrast setting to minimum. And does the Fisheye Zoom lens zoom from fisheye > projection to "straight-line" (rectilinear) projection as he suggests? > > Go Herbert.
Indeed. It's nice to see a journalist who'll admit to using something other than the latest top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon system, let alone owning one as his personal camera. My take on the article is that he was trying to put himself in the position of a naive user, just one step up from the point-and-shoot brigade. While Herb Keppler knows how to adjust white balance, ISO, etc. between shots his target audience hasn't progressed that far yet. And in any case you can't make those adjustments on a film camera, so for the sake of a fair comparison he didn't take advantage of the extra flexibility the digital body offers. Admittedly he *did* let the film body make use of the extra latitude from a print film. But, again, that's what his target audience will be using. I think the article will probably sell more than a few *ist-Ds. <Martha>And that's a _good_ thing.</Martha>
