OT- tom, are you shooting your weddings exclusively with the *istD, or are you using another digital slr of some description?
Also, you said "I regularly make 16x20's from 6 megs, and I'm always astonished at how good they look. I like them better than most of the prints I got from my 645, and that includes the ones I printed myself." The guy at the lab that is trying to get me to take my work to them, seems to think exactly the same. In fact he was trying to get me to buy the Minolta Dimage A1, which is only 5megs claiming that its results were better than any digital slr on the market! I too, have been "holding out" and hoping for a Pentax 10megapixel slr, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on the abilities of only 6. If what you are saying is true (about the 16x20s), then there is really no reason (except for $$$) for me NOT to convert to the *istD ASAP! tan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:23 PM Subject: RE: *istD - Hmmmmm > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Yes, they would. You would find that resolution doesn't > > really matter > > > that much. > > > > > That comments reminds me of going into photography show or > > store selling > > photographs. At print sizes over 8X10, I can pretty much > > tell what film > > format was used. The difference is grain and definition. > > Digital images do > > not have the grain you would expect from film but on larger > > prints, the > > images look very plastic - like visiting a "wax museum". > > You prefaced your original comment by saying you had been lurking. Did > you miss the 5000 posts pertaining to this subject? > > I regularly make 16x20's from 6 megs, and I'm always astonished at how > good they look. I like them better than most of the prints I got from > my 645, and that includes the ones I printed myself. > > The question these days isn't whether digital is better than film, > it's which do you prefer? Only you can answer this. The problem, and I > faced it too, is you don't really know what it's capable of until you > start using it yourself. > > Personally, I prefer a lack of grain and high apparent sharpness over > high resolution for most things. > > tv > >
