It seems we are in total agreement.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 17 Feb 2006 at 7:30, 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.
>
> So I guess you are saying that 6MP images are good enough for mag
> publication,
> probably full spread at a pinch too, I agree. Some of us are a little more
> demanding than that. Condescending enough?
>
>
> 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
>
