As several people have mentioned on this list: "The proof is in the prints"
Tom shoots with a <achhh> Canon 10D, and I've seen his prints. They are VERY good. I've printed so far up to 8x12 or so from the ist-D and I am totally amazed at how they look. 35mm film is dead to me at this point. 6MP is plenty. That being said, I'm not a pro, therefore I only have to please myself, your results may vary. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:39 PM Subject: Re: *istD - Hmmmmm > OT- tom, are you shooting your weddings exclusively with the *istD, or are > you using another digital slr of some description? > > Also, you said "I regularly make 16x20's from 6 megs, and I'm always > astonished at how good they look. I like them better than most of the prints > I got from my 645, and that includes the ones I printed myself." > > The guy at the lab that is trying to get me to take my work to them, seems > to think exactly the same. In fact he was trying to get me to buy the > Minolta Dimage A1, which is only 5megs claiming that its results were better > than any digital slr on the market! I too, have been "holding out" and > hoping for a Pentax 10megapixel slr, but I am interested to hear your > thoughts on the abilities of only 6. If what you are saying is true (about > the 16x20s), then there is really no reason (except for $$$) for me NOT to > convert to the *istD ASAP! > > tan.
