On 27 Oct 2005 at 6:33, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I can see the difference in my *ist D prints from the FA 35/2 vs. the > DA16-45/4. The latter show excellent resolution in 12 x 18 size, the > former are superb. Wearing my most powerful reading glasses and > examining the prints at a distance that is far closer than that from > which they would normally be displayed, the difference is discernible. > Based on this very unscientific experiment, I would have to say that > the D can take advantage of better lenses. I'm sure you can come up > with some mathematics that belies that, but the physical evidence says > otherwise.
Most decent lenses will out-perform the *ist D at small apertures. Most of my current lenses are very good to excellent wide open, those that didn't perform were purged (apart from my A20/2.8). They produce great large prints but they definitely aren't being utilized to their full potential on the *ist D either, no need for mathematical proof. Printing to 12 x 18 with any significant cropping of the file will produce less than optimal prints as far as I'm concerned, but YMMV. I guess my question is how the heck do other manufacturers manage to sell one camera that's higher spec'd than a *ist D if that's all anyone actually needs? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
