----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: Re: *istD - Hmmmmm
> 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! Not Tom, but.......... What I have seen from the ist D only up to 12x18, not 16x20 but..... My initial reaction to the 12x18 was that it looked like it had the same quality as what I would expect from my medium format. Upon closer inspection, while grain was certainly suppressed, there was a lack of very fine detail. What 6mp digital gives you is a lot of why one shoots medium format in a 35mm sized package. The picture quality is certainly good enough to sell. So far, the only thing I have found to be a pain is the wide angle thing. I had to shoot some film the other day, and I resented it for the time I was going to have to take to scan it. So much so that I invented an excuse to make a CD of the negs. Since you are already semi digital, in that you are scanning most of your film, a digital camera really makes a lot of sense. The results are great, and since you don't have to spend your Saturday nights scanning film, you can go dancing. William Robb
