On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:34:33 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote: > 2) The *istD could perform better about true resolution, so that you can > apply proper unsharp mask and then get larger format prints. This is not a > hypothetical wish. Other cameras are capable to do that, including the best > 4-5 Mpix P&S around, including the Optio 550/555 (only in bright light at > lower ISO setting) hence the *istD should too. This has changed very little > during the last year. I'm probably a bit less critical now (see the next > point, wher I explain why), but I still think so.
Could you expand on this a bit, Dario? I'm seriously considering jumping into the digital world, just due to on-going costs, if nothing else. But I don't think I understand what you're saying above. > 3) [...] sharpest possible lenses [...] take all possible measures to > ensure the camera to be steady [...] and the focus to be accurate [...] > then the sharpness can be not so bad. That all just goes along with a smaller format sensor. I'm wondering about the differences between the *ist D and its competition, though. > 4) [...] decent RAW converter. This problem was settled a few days ago, > since I had the chance to try Pentax Photo Laboratory 2.0. Now _that_ sounds very encouraging. Has it done anything to clear up your point (2)? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
