I remember back a long time ago when there were these magazine articles
saying that computer memory was fast approaching theoretical limits and
soon could get no larger. They were wrong on two counts. 1. They
obviously did not understand the theory because memory now is several
times as dense as they said was possible. 2. Chips got larger. Just so
you understand, they were saying that when memory chips were about 64
kilobits each <GRIN!>.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
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.
Paul
On Oct 27, 2005, at 1:19 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 at 22:03, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I love the look of my Pentax lenses too, but short of doing some Canon
lens
mount butchery they really aren't being taken full advantage of due to
Pentax's
poor offerings.
Here we disagree. The istD is hardly a poor offering imaging wise.
Yep I agree it's fine if you only use a slow consumer zoom lens.
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
