Bob Sullivan wrote: > Not to be rude,
You're not rude at all, IMO. > but aren't you the guy who said the image quality on > the *istD was terrible. No, I never thought and wrote that. I keep saying that I love the *ist D and the result it can deliver. Since last November 2003, when I first got a *istD for testing it, I've no longer shot film. You can find such statements in many messages by me. However, I wrote again and again that I expected: 1) Better resolution (and I tried to guess an explanation for a lower resolution than other cameras, either comparable or supposed poorer, like some 5-Mpix class P&S). 2) Better RAW conversion software. > And didn't you just recently show and rave > about the detail you got in a *istD photo (eye of model). Yes, it's me. That was kind of joking, since I saw some sample pictures (supposed and discussed as examples of good quality) which to me appeared worse than some recent pictures I took. So I posted a detail that could look better (as it is) and ask the *istD supporters which camera/lens could take something like that. Nobody risked to state it was taken with the *istD. This is interesting to me. > So what > made you change your opinion? Believe it or not, my opinion hasn't changed so much. I can summarize it as follows: 1) The *istD is an excellent DSLR. In many (not all) respects it outperforms equivalent 35mm film SLR's. This hasn't changed a bit during the last year. 2) The *istD could perform better about true resolution, so that you can apply proper unsharp mask and then get larger format prints. This is not a hypothetical wish. Other cameras are capable to do that, including the best 4-5 Mpix P&S around, including the Optio 550/555 (only in bright light at lower ISO setting) hence the *istD should too. This has changed very little during the last year. I'm probably a bit less critical now (see the next point, wher I explain why), but I still think so. 3) If you use the best possible lenses around (I discarded lenses that are too soft on the *istD, such as the 15/3.5, and I bought the DA 16-45 and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX) and take all possible measures to ensure the camera to be steady (e.g. I use a tripod and a monopod whenever I can) and the focus to be accurate (e.g. I discarded lenses whose focus is erratic on my *istD, like the F 70-210), then the sharpness can be not so bad. Please notice that stating that sharpness can be good (see 3), and resolution should be better (see 2) does make sense, as resolution is the amount of detail you can resolve, while sharpness is how the details (being few or many) are visible. 4) The *ist D could perform so much better if it had a decent RAW converter. This problem was settled a few days ago, since I had the chance to try Pentax Photo Laboratory 2.0. At last, Pentax did a great job and the crap 1.0 (which feature a wrong conversion algorythm, see enlarged crops at: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm) has turned into the great 2.0. In this case, I didn't change my opinion: Pentax improved their product a lot! Have I been able to explain well my opinion? Dario
