no, but i like to use my fisheye lenses. not to mention, wide-angles but speaking of 144M, why stop there? why not 288M and 32bit?
best, mishka On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:12:52 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's your opinion. I've sold a bunch of stock photos, made numerous > 12 x 18 prints, and shot numerous magazine articles with my *istD. My > clients find it more than adequate. Extremely sharp 144 megabyte 16-bit > files are adequate for most uses. Are you shooting billboards? > > > Paul > On Oct 19, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Mishka wrote: > > > if isd* were adequate, i would have already gotten one. > > > > mishka > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:42:04 -0400, Paul Stenquist > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think you'll see a new TOL Pentax SLR digital within a year. Once > >> you > >> dip your toe in the water, you might as well go in all the way. And > >> let's not forget that the *ist-D is quite adequate for almost all > >> applications right now. Better will be great, but Pentax has already > >> produced a digital SLR that is decisively topped only by very > >> expensive > >> pro cameras. I think the next Pentax DSLR will be a relatively > >> affordable 8 or 10 megapixel unit. That would be in keeping with how > >> they position the brand against the market leaders. > >> > >> > >> Paul > > > >
