Bill, You bring up an excellent point. When the subject fills most of the frame (people) and/or don't require bitingly sharp rendition, then the 6mp can be adequate. This is especially true for shooting weddings and portraits.
When you are shooting detailed landscapes and such, then 6mp at big enlargements can be less than satisfying. The other issue is the ability to crop. When I shoot 35mm or 6mp digital, I don't feel like I have any cropping room. I pretty much need to compose the final image before the shot. When I was shooting 67, it was easy to carve the final image out of a portion of the negative. There was oodles of room for cropping. Of course, the speed of handling and limited selection of lenses I had naturally required more cropping. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, February 17, 2006, 6:26:06 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Shel Belinkoff" WR> Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment. >> At the last NorCal get together that I attended, Bruce showed one of his >> photos made with the istD blown up to 16x20, or some other such large >> size. >> Larger than the 13x19 or so which a lot of people print at. The print was >> soft, and Bruce admitted so. It didn't look bad from a distance, but it >> was not as sharp as the smaller prints. IMO, 6mp was not "good enough" >> for >> that sized print. >> >> Good enough takes many forms, and is, of course, at times, subjective. >> IMO >> 6mp is enough for magazines and most print work. It's not good enough for >> some large, exhibition-sized prints. WR> It is good enough for general portraiture, but this work is not as detail WR> dependant, and in fact, less detail is often desirable than more. WR> I've done a few 16x24 inch prints off the Epson that are quite nice. WR> OTOH, if I wanted to do something more akin to my large format landscapes, I WR> think it would take a dozen or more exposures pasted together to get the WR> kind of detail I would be wanting. WR> William Robb
