Why an istDs? If it's good enough for the NY Times, it's good enough for me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/international/americas/13canada.html Or search the Times site for "Yellowknife" The shot was done with the 18-55, program exposure. I picked up an istDs several months ago. From the outset, my impression has been that it is a good straightforward tool that does what I need with a minimum of fuss. I've used a Kodak DSC14n quite a bit, so I have a basis for comparison. Within a few days of the purchase I told our local camera shop that I view the istDS as a digital equivalent to the K1000, and encouraged them to market it as such. Some time later I came across similar thoughts in Mike Johnson's column at Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml As a pro, I prefer to use tools that get on with things rather than trying to tell me what to do. The istDS suits me well. (At lunch time today I'm going to play with a K1000 I was just given...) John Poirier Yellowknife, Nortwest Territories, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:09 am Subject: Re: Why an istDs? > I don't know, the *ist-Ds captures show sighs of being over > sharpened, > (the halos where the building meets the sky for example). > > Dario Bonazza wrote: > > > Third and last one (more than enough, I believe): > > www.dariobonazza.com/provv/latitude3.jpg > > Dario > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dario Bonazza" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:36 AM > > Subject: Re: Why an istDs? > > > > > >> Here's another crop: > >> www.dariobonazza.com/provv/latitude2.jpg > >> > >> Dario > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dario Bonazza" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:22 AM > >> Subject: Re: Why an istDs? > >> > >> > >>> It is not. The apparent blur is the result of low sharpness > setting. > >>> I prefer adding a proper unsharp mask during post-production, > >>> according to the print size. On the contrary, the Ds was set > as > >>> default, hence heavy USM and "bright" color setting. BTW, the > true > >>> colors of the scene were somewhere in betweeen the two > pictures, > >>> probably closer to the D picture. > >>> > >>> However, this is not the the comparison I wanted to do. I just > >>> wanted to show that the DS is capable to better open the > shadows > >>> (highlights being comparable). > >>> > >>> Dario > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling" > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:04 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Why an istDs? > >>> > >>> > >>>> The *ist-D sample looks to be out of focus as well. > >>>> > >>>> Kenneth Waller wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Looks like more than exposure latitude going on there. > >>>>> > >>>>> Kenneth Waller > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Why an istDs? > >>>>> > >>>>> To get an idea abot exposure latitude difference between the > D and > >>>>> the DS: > >>>>> www.dariobonazza.com/provv/latitude.jpg > >>>>> > >>>>> Dario > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> PeoplePC Online > >>>>> A better way to Internet > >>>>> http://www.peoplepc.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and > shout).>>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > >
