Hi Mark ... While the results I've seen don't cause me to wax ecstatic over digital camera/print combinations, I have to agree with your comments wrt quality. If you like it, and gets the job done for you, all the technical reasons in the world why it can't be are meaningless. Whether I, or anyone else, sees the same quality in your prints that you do, or in their own prints, is also meaningless. If you're happy that's all that matters.
I, too, am concerned that Pentax will soon be an also-ran. It's a shame. I believe their marketing is hurting them more than their product line. Shops around these parts don't carry a full line of their products, and many people are not even familiar with some of the great cameras and lenses Pentax produces. There are people here who know nothing about the LTD series lenses, and who have never seen an LX, and didn't know Pentax makes filters, etc. There are a couple of stores here that have never seen the MZ-S. Mark Cassino wrote: > > I using digital and getting excellent results. I really don't care about > the sophistry that's being bandied about: I'm doing large prints (13 x 19) > taken with digitals, and they are not just good enough, the quality is great. > > You can advance the personal insult argument and claim that I have low > standards, settle for good enough, am too stupid to know the difference, > etc. I don't care. I have exacting standards and have been quite > pleasantly surprised by the quality of digitals. > > You can also offer up theoretical 'proofs' as to why digital is > inferior. I really don't care. I've seen the results and the 'proofs' are > wrong. > > I'm reminded of a photo.net discussion some time ago where someone asked > about the Pentax 500mm f4.5. He got a slew of answers, almost entirely > from people who never used the lens, explaining why it would surely be a > sub standard piece. I've used the lens. I knew they were wrong. The same > holds true with a lot of the sophistry regarding digitals. > > My use of digitals is really quite limited, and there's a lot that cannot > be done with it now. I think people should use the formate and media that > meets their needs the best. For some that's 35mm, for some that's MF or > large format, for others that's digital. My small format digital provides > a DOF in macros that's almost impossible to get with a 35mm. But it can > hardly be used to selectively focus on one subject, with a blurred > background. It has strengths, it has weaknesses, just like any other > format. But the basic quality of the images is every bit comparable to the > best scan I can get using a 2820 dpi scanner and 35mm film. > > The only aspect about digital that I find worrisome is Pentax's lagging > adoption of it. Their failure to adopt to bayonet mounts a quarter century > ago result in them dropping from a dominant position to that a second > tier. Slow and late adaptation of autofocus has knocked them back further. > And failure to adopt to digital may be the death blow. And with them goes > my investment in Pentax 35mm gear. > > - MCC > > At 02:19 AM 11/26/01 -0500, you wrote: > >In a message dated 11/25/01 8:43:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Don't sit around and dismiss it because it's not like the old tools you > > have > > > at hand. > > > > >One of the first things I learned back in 1982 when I was first introduced to > >writing code for computers was the phrase: > >"GI=GO" (garbage in equals garbage out). Not that digital is garbage, at > >least not my own device(s), but when making a print from small format digital > >files, small format digital simply does not input as much raw data as film. > > > >Scanning a negative or slide, (and realizing most under $10,000 printers > >can't begin to utilize ~all~ the inputted small format film data), gives you > >an embarrassment of riches datawise. Not so with small format digital. > > > >Perhaps then, digital devotees ought to simply note that, beside using a > >Polaroid, small format digital is another quick and easy way of making > >images, rather than Digital's supporters seeing (promoting) small format > >digital as a direct competitor to small format (35mm) film, which it most > >certainly isn't. > >***Current and future small format digital cameras hold the same unenviable > >position to 35mm film as small format film does to medium format film. More > >raw data makes better, denser prints. Scan small format digital images by > >whatever method or machine you choose, then drum scan 35mm negatives or > >slides and film wins hands down. Further, digitize a small format film drum > >scan, then output it digitally and the comparisons weigh even more heavily in > >favor of film. > > > >You can make any comparisons you want, as long as you realize you won't > >(can't) achieve near the same data input from small format digital what you > >get from 35mm film, the exact same discussion steadily raging between medium > >Vs. small format film supporters. > > > >Mafud > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >- > >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - - - - - - - - - - > Photos: > http://www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
