The lens resolution is probably not wasted on 6 mp sensors. People are making 16"x20" prints from them (and think they are very good), and this an enlargment size that is pushing it for 35mm. Mechanical quality is always a value. Now, digital does have a weak spot: dynamic range. Most, if not all, of the fixed lens digital cameras only work with 8 bits per color, per pixel, and the DSLRs go to 12. It's like working with narrow latitude slide film. You have to make sure highlight detail isn't lost, so the shadows will tend to block up unless lighting is controlled. A lens that is good on shadow detail (I have no idea how they make a lens to do this) won't be of much use.
Another thing to keep in mind is that "direct to digital/digital capture" is only advantagous if the image is going to be digitized at some point. If the end product is going to be a wet chemistry print, there's no point in entering the digital domain. --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apart from the comment about shadow detail, which I'm not quite sure how > to interpret, the other comments have been made many times by many > people, all, of course, more knowledgeable than I. You seem to have a > good handle on this digital business - do you think that high-quality > lenses are wasted on digital cameras at this point in their development? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
