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
>
