Tom, I like so much this message from you, because it is constructive and helps me think.
You wrote: > I think I (we) probably understand your concern, issue, desire for an > answer. It's just that there's virtually know valid way to compare images > taken with different cameras, sensors, lenses, settings and come up with a > meaningful result, or identify the reason for disparate results. I understand well this. However, I feel the *ist D to have some distinctive behaviour making it performing worse than it should (based on what you could expect from a good 6MP DSLR, having seen others). > If you > consistently over and over gain like a different camera, lens, system, then > go with it. I considered that option very seriously, and was very very tempted. Other folks previously on this list did that, and I have no perception they repented (although they might). However, I've been a Pentax user for 22+ years, I founded and I'm still running an international Pentax enthusiast club, I think Pentax to be the most important maker in SLR history (introducing more useful innovations and improvements than all other manufacturers did together), and I feel bad in abandoning Pentax. It is possible I'll do that sooner or later, but I wanted to give Pentax a last chance (and quite a bunch of my money :-). I've been waiting for years for a good Pentax DSLR, and I like the *ist D so much under many respects. I just don't like its low-sharpness/low-resolution approach to digital image (just my opinion ;-). > Overall, I'd be highly surprised that a P&S 4 MP camera could > consistently, across the board, at every focal length, aperture, and camera > setting (contrast, sharpness, saturation), and post-camera manipulation, > outperform a 6 MP *istD with a given lens of X quality. Maybe in some > cases, it could... but even that tends to be subjective... what you see > versus what I see. Of course. If a 4MP was always better than the *ist D, I'd have bought it already (somebody I know did that). I mean there are several 4MP/5MP P&S cameras that under ideal conditions (=outdoor in bright light) can outperform the *ist D. The Optio 550/555 is among them, BTW. I have evidence of that, but such evidence are a pile of large format prints in my friend's office. OK, let's say it's my opinion again ;-) How the hell can this (my odd opinion) be possible? This is what I was trying to understand, and I think I've got some explanation for that. Do I feel better? Not sure, but I can get a reason for that. > If one prefers image A from a 4 MP P&S camera better than image B from an > *istD with a given lens, there's no guarantee one might not prefer an *istD > image compared to one from the other system, in a different set of > cirumstances. I agree with you. Despite appearance (due to the topic), I still like the *ist D. > To make a valid, conclusive appraisal, one must make the playing field equal > on a single test, or equal across all tests, and each must be quantified. That's what I did some months ago, when I compared the *ist D+FAJ18-35 to the S2 Pro+Sigma 15-30 and the EOS300D +EF-S 18-55. I didn't want to compare sensors there (what a useless test it should be!). I wanted to compare the results one could get from similar camera systems under the same circumstance. Very useful, I believe. More than enough for the owner of the S2 Pro, deciding not to replace it with the *ist D (despite he was a Pentax user and owner of so many Pentax lenses). In this case of picture resizing, I wanted to check my suspect that image data stored in picture file might be lesser than you could expect from a 6MP DSLR file. It is possible that similar results can be achieved checking files by other cameras too. I'm going to check that further. I already did some tests, but I won't let you know the results. Anybody interested can do that by himself and draw his own conclusions. No need to believe a detractor :-( > Otherwise one is saying only that they they prefer their Volkswagen to > another's Toyota. That's valid and no one needs to justify it. OK. > Let's begin to differentiate between the camera and the RAW conversion > software. OK. The RAW conversion software is crap, but the camera can be better (and I think it is). > Let's differentiate between the lenses, focal lengths, and > apertures. Your're speaking to a large audience, many more knowledgable > than myself, that just don't accept subjective blanket statements without > evidence. So far you haven't provided that scientific eveidence that backs > your statements. All you have is subjective assertions and opinions, which > you are entitled to hold. Thats would be correct in ideal world. Unfortunately, I have no spare time enough for testing the whole world. IMO, I tested enough for having good evidence to build a solid opinion. > I haven't heard of anyone on the list exhaustively testing '3 different > *istD bodies with 15 different lenses' that has compared them to an > explicitly stated camera brand A/model B. If that's the case and you have, > let's see the unambiguous, undisputable results to back up your statements. Tested 3 *istD bodies with 15 different lenses, but only compared one body (the best one, I believe) and one lens to 2 camera brands/models. Better than nothing, I believe. > You, understandably, probably can't provide this. No discredit to you, we > all generalize at times. > Without that, let's just say it's your personal > and subjective opinion, formed in probably a narrow set of circumstances > that have probably not been quantified. Results here: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p1e.htm > Regarding the pictures on the Pentax website, what is 'an offical Pentax > image'? There is no such thing and they only stuck those pictures out on > the website for advertising purposes. IMO, an official Pentax image is an image released in official Pentax website (please don't ask me what is a Pentax official website) for advertising the performance of a product. You could expect it is something taken with some care, and worth considering as a good example of performance. OK, a test with a better (not so extreme focal length) lens could be better suited to the purpose of seeing the system limits, and I'm going to do something like that. I won't be posting the results here, as I cannot afford to engage my life explaining and justifying myself and being treated as a detractor. Sorry, I have a family and a job to take care of. All the best, Dario Bonazza
