Paul, The reason I'm not yet shooting Raw is that my PC won't support PS CS & I haven't been able to find a satisfactory Raw convertor that will work with my machine (its a 1997 vintage). I'm in the process of flushing this out & didn't want to return from Denali with images I couldn't view/print. That said, I believe that in coming from my slide background, my images (exposures) are probably not far from what they could be if I shot Raw & converted. I plan on shooting raw as I have seen first hand the benefits but I'm just not ready to shell out the bucks for a new PC.
Thanks for your compliments on my bear image, stay tuned, more are coming. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FA 600/4 for digital (WAS: Re: FA 600 f4.0 and FA 300 f2.8 do I really need them?) > Hi Ken, > 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > >
