Paul
On Oct 19, 2004, at 10:28 PM, Mishka wrote:
no, but i like to use my fisheye lenses. not to mention, wide-angles but speaking of 144M, why stop there? why not 288M and 32bit?
best, mishka
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:12:52 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:That's your opinion. I've sold a bunch of stock photos, made numerous
12 x 18 prints, and shot numerous magazine articles with my *istD. My
clients find it more than adequate. Extremely sharp 144 megabyte 16-bit
files are adequate for most uses. Are you shooting billboards?
Paul On Oct 19, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Mishka wrote:
if isd* were adequate, i would have already gotten one.
mishka
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:42:04 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I think you'll see a new TOL Pentax SLR digital within a year. Once you dip your toe in the water, you might as well go in all the way. And let's not forget that the *ist-D is quite adequate for almost all applications right now. Better will be great, but Pentax has already produced a digital SLR that is decisively topped only by very expensive pro cameras. I think the next Pentax DSLR will be a relatively affordable 8 or 10 megapixel unit. That would be in keeping with how they position the brand against the market leaders.
Paul
