I'm not sure I want to go deeper, as every time I did that in the past I had to front the attack of those accusing me to be a denigrator, and I'm very tired of that. Maybe I'm goig to explain more off-list... Dario
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:28 AM Subject: Re: F24-50 > 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 > >
