That's quite true. But they produce higher quality images than my 10D does, and are far less hassle to me than shooting RAW is (I've come to the realization of late that the reason I keep going through DSLR's is a profound aversion to post-processing rather than any issue with the bodies themselves, although small buffers continue to annoy).
I get more quality for a given amount of effort from 645 than I would from even a K10D, even if the max available quality (K10D RAW vs. 4490 scans of my 645 negs) is essentially the same. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > That's fine if that's what you want to do. It does not contradict > what I said, however. > > BTW: unless you're using a Nikon 9000 or Imacon scanner, or drum > scanner, or do all the processing with a high quality wet lab > enlarger and chemical printing process, the 645 negatives will only > just match the image quality available from a K10D exposure for up to > a 16x20 inch print. I've tested this and found it to be true to my > satisfaction. > > Godfrey > > > On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> I'm not much of a tripod user with 35mm/digital stuff. But I don't use >> that kit for the most part if max quality is the goal, I pull out the >> 645 and the tripod and shoot with MLU and a remote release. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> Without using a tripod, you're cutting your maximum resolution by a >>> factor of at least 50%. Even at 1/500 second exposure time. >>> >>> This is not be important for many types of photographs, but for >>> others it is a very important factor. I use a tripod a LOT of the >>> time. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
