And there's a big difference between 6MP from a dslr and 6MP from a compact.
DagT > > fra: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > dato: 2006/02/17 fr PM 01:37:41 CET > til: [email protected] > emne: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment. > > Of course the adequacy of six megapixel images for many types of work > is dependent on shooting RAW and converting to high resolution with > good tools. > On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax > > critiques posted here, there is a need to be condescending. The post > > implied that the Pentax cameras are inadequate photographic tools. Not > > only are the 6 megapixel images very acceptable to the stock house and > > pubs for which I work, they are more than adequate for every stock > > house that I am aware of and every pub I've ever worked with, which > > includes some majors. Yet, the post implied that the Pentax digital > > camera are not just inadequate for that particular user but inadequate > > photographic tools. That is simply not true and requires > > clarification. > > Paul > > > > On Feb 17, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > >> On 17 Feb 2006 at 6:23, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> > >>> Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock > >>> house > >>> that sels my pics that six megapixels isn't good enough. They have > >>> hundreds of my images that are working just fine for them. How could > >>> that be? > >> > >> There's no need to be condescending, if 6MP images are good enough > >> for you and > >> your stock house/magazine publishers that's great, you've got just > >> the tool to > >> do the job but it doesn't mean that it's good enough for everyone. > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > >
