The *ist DS image will be approximately 290 ppi output at that size where the Nikon D200 image will be around 370 ppi. Those densities are not going to show a lot of difference if any. I begin to see differences between 6 and 10 Mpixel much more clearly when the output ppi is getting down around 180 ppi, which is an image area around 11x16 inches for 16 Mpixel. On a 13x19, the differences are becoming more obvious.
Since my usual print is in the A3 (11x17) range, the K10D's resolution is worth it to me: it gives more room for cropping and adjustment. Its other benefits and features would have to be more significant were I only printing to a 7x10.5 inch size on average. Godfrey On Oct 29, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Walter Hamler wrote: > A friend just purchased a D200 so we did some comparo shots > yesterday. Same > scene, fl, exposure, etc. His D200 and my istDL. He emailed me a > couple > frames, 5.8 meg jpegs. I printed his and mine, 7 x 10.5 inches on > photo > quality paper. He nor I can detect ANY difference in print quality. My > printer only goes that size max, but I really wonder how much > difference > there might be on a 13 x19 for instance. > All this is in trying to determine if I really want a K10 or settle > for a > K100 as a second body. I really want the image stabilization, and > like the > benefit of having a second body that is identical to the DL in > operation. My > thinking is that for the price of the K10 I can get a K100 body and > an Epson > 1800 printer! (well, another 100.00 extra) > > Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
