[font color=\'#000000\']This question is actually for Michael, but I'm also interested in any other opinions.
I'm about to make the plunge into digital and I'm divided between the KM-A2 based on Michael's reccomendation in his review. The problem is that he also notes that the 6MP cameras such as the Rebel D will produce better images than the 8MP digicams. He also notes that he's been able to produce a number of pro and display quality images with the A2.
I've handled both the A2 and the Rebel D and the Rebel is a lot bigger and heavier as would be expecetd of a D-SLR. The real attraction here is that I have AF Canon gear and lenses (20mm to 300mm, flash etc.) so the Rebel D seems the natural fit.
But the A2 seems to have everything I want - especially in a first digital camera - and it does get rid of all the accesory junk I need to carry with the D-SLR as well as being a lot lighter. The ISO level noise factor is not an issue with me since I only use 100-ISO transparency film anyway. AND the built in image stablizer is a real plus - something I would have to pay a lot more for on the Rebel D.
The object of this ramble is - how much post processing did he have to do on the A2 files to get the pro/presentation quality images as compared to what he gets from his 10D?
All comments are welcome.
Cheers[/font]
