Michael Cash wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:40:55 +0100, Jean-Marc Desperrier
> <jmdesp@alussinan.org> brought down from the Mount tablets inscribed:

[snip]

>
> The primary thing which caused me to choose the Pentax is backwards
> compatibility on lenses. Supposedly, it is capable of using
> practically any Pentax lens ever manufactured (even those made for 6x6
> medium format cameras). The D40 instituted a new method of coupling
> which severely limits the range of lenses that can be used. Since I'm
> not rich, I liked the option of being able to pick up used Pentax
> lenses, even if they're not auto-focus or specifically meant to work
> with digital systems.
>
> Also, the Pentax's image stabilization feature is mounted in the body,
> not in the lens as is the case with other makes (if I understand it
> correctly). That means that even with an older low-tech lens I can
> still have the benefit of the shake reduction feature.

I bought a Sony Alpha for similar reasons: I have a bunch of old Minolta
lenses, and the auto-focus and image stabilization work with all of them.

> On the way home today I stopped off and bought some A4 matte finish
> photo paper. The 6 megapixels were sufficient to produce very nice
> prints. If I didn't know they were digital, I would swear they came
> from a film camera.

Anything over 6 megapixels is probably approaching the real-world
resolution of film (about 5-20 'megapixels', I'm led to believe), but
for lousy shooters like me the opportunity to easily "Fix it in
Photoshop" (apparently an insult among real photographers) is the real
payoff. And, speaking of Photoshop, if you haven't already, have a look
at this:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

I've been playing with it for a while, and, when Adobe gets it finished,
think its going to be much more useful than photoshop for most mortals.

Dan

--
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it
includes an annual free trip around the Sun.