Dario, Not to be rude, but aren't you the guy who said the image quality on the *istD was terrible. And didn't you just recently show and rave about the detail you got in a *istD photo (eye of model). So what made you change your opinion? Regards, Bob S.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:33:34 +0200, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to make things clear for those who subscribed during this year 2004, my > test on the *istD and lenses was done and published one year ago, so there > are some details which should be updated if I had the time to do that (e.g. > RAW conversion quality, performance of the DA 16-45mm, etc.). > However, all published images are either unprocessed original pictures or > crops from original pictures and show actual quality you can get with such > equipment in those shooting conditions. > > Dario > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:00 PM > Subject: F24-50 > > > > > Jens, > > > > I lost your OP re F24-50. Dario posted today some comparisons under > > the 24-90 thread; the 24-50 features there. > > > > Kostas > > > >
