Look Villageidiot (stops and wonders how he could have ever come up with that name) My first post said that I think that the K10D is the best camera in the sub $1000 category. This whole thread was supposed to be about the 400D or any other camera that people think is worth looking at. I said that the K10D has in camera IS (which the OP said he would appreciate) and that I recommended it. You obviously can't handle that, I don't know why.
You start to post rebuttals to the claims I made about the K10D; why? You had no clue what half the things I was referring to (the in camera RAW conversion) claiming all cameras can do that. When I finally get it through you head what in camera RAW conversion is you blow it off like it's nothing important (a likely response at this point in an argument.) maybe it is for you maybe it isn't for others. It's saved my life a few times with regard to being able to free up space on my mem-card. Still I'm wondering why you care so much that I suggested a Pentax.
I could care less what you or anyone else shoot with. I could care less about whatever whizz-bang feature your chosen camera has, it doesn't affect my shooting. I still make money with my Pentax, enough to get me through college. I submitted my portfolio to the software review site I write for, they forwarded it to Adobe and I got $4000 worth of free software to evaluate and write about, so I'm thinking that this "inferior" camera i've got is probably just as good as anyone else's.
On my other forum (for a national photography magazine) there are at least 5 or 6 professionals using Canons who, have publicly declared that if they weren't already heavily invested in Canon lenses they would be using the Pentax K10D. These guys are using your EOD 1Ds II "Holy Grail" camera and they still see that there is something special about the K10D. Another is the resident Photoshop expert and retired professional photographer who says the same thing about his equipment. And he has given up entirely on promoting Canons in the sub $1000 category. Pentax doesn't even have a camera above $1000 right now, the 50 MP 645 digital should be out by 2008 but that's going to take your Hasselblads on, not the 1Ds III's, it's a medium format camera, ever heard of the original Pentax 645? it's legendary to those of us who are familiar with things other than Canon.
Again just to make sure you know (since I notice that you need things explained to you more than once) I said that I think that the K10D is the best sub $1000 camera available. I even think it's better than the 30D and the D200, but these are my personal opinions. I've backed up every claim I've made, but you aren't happy with my claims so no amount of further banter is going to help you see the light.
That's all I can stand to take from you, I've got another headache now and I'm going out to shoot instead of causing myself any further discomfort.
P.S. all my hair is still intact. I pulled none of it out, and the only thing I was ever frustrated with was you and your stubbornness to see the truth.
Taken from my other forum where I asked the Canon users why they needed full frame cameras: (And this was taken from one of those Canon Pros I mentioned) Me asking the question, the Pro answering.)
"If not then why all the clamor for a FF camera besides the wide angle aspect?"
A clamor? Not so sure about that....
A full frame camera offers a brighter viewfinder and shallower DOF with the right lenses.
Many say that FF cameras produce less noise and better quality images, but that's still debatable, IMO.
Others want the lenses produced for FF film SLRs to work the same with their DSLRs. I prefer how the 'cropped' cameras use the best part of the lenses.
When all is said and done, the proof is in the final print. When one compares a print from a FF camera next to one from a 'cropped' camera, I really doubt whether anyone would be able to distinguish between them.
Of course, if I spent $3000+ on a camera, I would hotly dispute that point!
