Godfrey, this time I am thinking more about a reduced circle lens, such as Tamron 18-200, or 18-250 or even Sigma 18-200...
That Nikon lens - it did not appear bulky at all. It is of course less bulky that any 3-4 zoom lens solution that I have right now - 18-35, 43 mm or 28-75/2.8, and 80-200 or 80-320. The last one is really bulky, by the way. But I see your point. I must also add that an idea of lossy compression of RAW files did not occur to me indeed. I find that impossible to imagine. Boris Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Mar 23, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > >> A friend of mine, who is Nikonian ;-) just brought the above from a >> trip >> across the ocean. I really liked the zoom range though in dark light >> with hood attached (so that it blocks the AF assist light) it focuses >> very reluctantly. Somehow D80' NEF is 3 times less than K10D's DNG... > > Nikon implements compression on their RAW data files. I'm not > entirely sure why but the D200 model has a user mode to switch > between compressed and uncompressed RAW. My two conjectures are that > they don't necessarily use lossless compression on the RAW data, or > that they allow you to turn off the compression to improve > performance if you're doing high-speed sequence capture. > >> Still, K10D feels much more fitting my hand. >> >> I am pondering replacing my set of slowish zoom lenses with one >> super-zoom. The quality will probably be very similar, but at least I >> will not have to swap lenses... > > I tried the Tamron 28-300 and was unimpressed, sent it back. Bulky, > slow, decent but nothing special in image quality. > > The Pentax DA50-200 is small, light, slow, and quite good on image > quality. > > Godfrey > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
