lol! have you been spying on me?!? not just saturday nights, virtually every night! I have worked out this great way to lean my head on the keyboard and snooze and abruptly wake when I hear the scan end! ok, so no dancing would be happenin' in these parts, but a scan free night would be most appreciated by my kids....
me needs a digital slr... tan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:59 PM Subject: Re: *istD - Hmmmmm > > ----- 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 > >
