On 4/16/07, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David J Brooks wrote: > > > One thing i noticed, and not sure why, but the 16-45 on the K10D gives > > a sharper image, on screen, that the istD. I have both cameras "zero'd > > out". The 50-200 appears to give a slightly sharper image on the K10D > > as well, but less noticeable then the 16-45. > > > > Still the images are not as sharp as the Nikon ones, "zero'd out". > > What do you mean - "zero'ed out?"
Its Bill Fortney's term. I have my cameras all set at Normal, Zero, or in the centre for sharpnes tone hue etc. I tried the istD with the sharpness set 1 level on the plus side and it just looked to sharp. At zero, to soft. The K10D seems to have a better sharpnes at zero that the istD, or at least in my case. Dave > > > Let me know how that diet works out. I'll buy it from you.LOL > > I probably should of bought a heavier tripod to burn off the pounds... > > >> Looking forward to a DA 600 f4 some day... :-) > > > > Aren't we all.:-) > > > It's funny and rather sad that the hall mark of Pentax used to be "tons > of lenses available" - not only in the used market, but new as well. > Well, hopefully that will turn around. > > - MCC > > -- > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino Photography > Kalamazoo, Michigan > www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
