João Moreira wrote:
I have made some researches and, after I saw Dario's homepage, I became a little concerned on the sharpness of the *ist D. Is it really unsharp?
If you shoot JPEG, there something left to be desired, as in-camera JPEG conversion is good, but not the best around (Canon, Nikon and Fuji are a bit better).
If you shoot RAW, you can have results well comparable to other cameras in the same class (provided that you won't use the crappy PENTAX converter). Use Rawshooter Essentials instead, and be happy.
If so, is it something Photoshop can fix (I mean, do you always have to use Photoshop to fix the sharpness of all your photos)?
If you want the best appealing results with minimum effort while shooting JPEG, buy a Canon and be damned :-) However, to get the best results, you have to fix (more or less) ALL pictures, irrespectively of the camera system of your choice. Generally speaking, be conservative of picture data. Most of all, set a lower sharpness for capture and then add a proper sharpness via Photoshop. A proper sharpness can vary a lot from picture to picture.
By how many points (in average)?
I tuly cannot answer this question. See reply above.
And what about the colour rendition? It is completely different from the *ist D to the Fujifilm and the Cannon cameras. Which one delivers the right colour?
Said that probably there's no such a thing as a "correct color rendition", there are however evident "cast renditions". I find the Nikon and the Pentax D (and DS/DL "natural color setting") to be good, while Canon, Fuji and "bright color setting" of Pentax DS/DL are way off.
Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over the *ist DL? What are the extra features?
That's definitely a matter of opinion. Generally speaking, I'd dare to say a weak "no". Buy the DS/DS2 now or wait for the leaked K100D (with shake reduction), soon to be announced.
Dario
