It is if you don't resample.

Printing is normally done with a 300ppi image - more than that and the eye cannot see the improvement. It also increases the file size unnecessarily.

The printer dpi can be as high as possible and that will make a difference.

Many books, articles and even instructions confuse ppi and dpi. The former is what the image is made up of, the latter relates to how many dots per inch of ink are used to make up that image on the paper.

I don't cover Wiltshire but I thought you might like to have a look at the white (in more ways than one) wedding we did last Saturday.

These days we don't ourselves offer albums, but photo books instead.

http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1137480

It's amazing that over 5fps is regarded as not very good, and I wonder who needs more than that?

The K20D can actually do 21fps at low resolution if you need it, but I can't remember any time when I might have.

Anyway, there are plenty of reviews out there that show any one of the marques as "winning" an evaluation. This of course totally ignores whether or not a camera might suit an individual or not. It also excludes that every one of them will give excellent results anyway.

In terms of amateur/semi-pro/enthusiast (call it what you will!) photography, we buy whatever we like. In terms of professionals there will always be kit that specifically addresses a need. This is a different issue though and the price tag is often very high indeed.

No, I don't mean on this forum. It's a separate program for camera club competitions.

Without getting distracted by that, if the screen resolution doesn't matter then why does Photoshop have a default value for documents for screen viewing of 72ppi?

Surely if we display our documents at the native resolution of devices it means that the video card doesn't need to interpolate and we should therefore in theory get the best possible result?

Interesting. We do have some competition software that will only accept 72ppi images, but I guess that's a different issue.

Because most monitors display at 72ppi and therefore no resampling is required.

Because you might be preparing the image for a specific purpose. If for a print, 300ppi and if for the web 72ppi.

Some of the values are connected, so it's easiest if you open the Image Size dialog and change some figures, seeing what happens when you do.

I wouldn't rate a Rikenon lens particularly highly. All the Pentax standard lenses are likely to be better. If you want a really superb manual focus lens then the SMC Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 will be hard to beat.

For the most critical close up work of course a macro lens will be better. This would be the SMC Pentax-A 50mm f2.8 Macro if you want manual focus.

Lenses before the A series are also excellent, but less convenient to use on our DSLRs.

I think it's all to do with the use of rare earth glasses in the construction.

I don't think users of radioactive lenses are going to start glowing in the dark.