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.
Also dependant on the ultimate output - web, magazine or large print
(13"X19" & up).
While I've gotten satisfactory results on numerous printed 13"X19" images
captured with the *istD, there have been some that I can't pull off @ that
size.
8mp would be fine but I'll probably not upgrade til a 10 or 12 mp Pentax
digital is available. <I may eat these words.
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
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
