Is there a reason why you didn't shoot RAW? I've found I get far more control over the final image in terms of exposure, sharpness, saturation and a number of other variables by shooting RAW and converting in PSCS.
However, that being said I think your bear pic is right up there among the best shots I've seen on PDML in recent memory.
Paul
On Oct 21, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
P�l, you asked "How does this lens work with the *istD? Image quality?"
I can't give you an exacting answer to your image quality question & I haven't done any objective testing of this combo either.
The combination worked flawlessly for me. I had never shot this combo before
& within a few frames it felt like I had been shooting it forever.
I shot max jpeg in manual mode, 200 iso, auto white balance with mostly
manual focus, wide open or close to it. I've printed some to 12"X18" on my
2000P @ 240 & 300 dpi & am most happy with the results. I wish you could see
the prints to really appreciate the results. I know it's hard to judge
results on the web but check out
http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzZkpc-p21150439 to see an example. This is
almost full frame.
I haven't done any comparison (same subject - digital vs. film) of this
combination with the 600mm & a film body.
So far, I can't really see a big difference in this lens whether in use with
a digital or film camera.
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FA 600/4 for digital (WAS: Re: FA 600 f4.0 and FA 300 f2.8 do I
really need them?)
Kenneth wrote:
I have the 600mm FA. I don't use it a lot. But I just returned from Denali
National Park, Alaska and it earned it's keep on this trip. I was able to
use it with the *ist D (sometimes with a 1.4XL teleconvertor) & got a wide
variety of animal shots, from full body to intimate portraits. I've done
this trip several times before without the 600 and swore I wouldn't return
to Denali without one.
REPLY:
How does this lens work with the *istD? Image quality?
P�l
