On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Tom C wrote:
I don't know why anybody that has the mindset to shoot RAW format and spend
the time post-processing would also not want the max resolution they could
get. If file size is an overarching concern, trumping quality, then there's
other 6MP models they can buy.
[Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-
frame sensors will always cost much more than [ ... ]
(Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D MarkII N is the largest
size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. [ ... ] ]
OK, obviously, they are trying to
My response in-line below.
On 8/30/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-
frame sensors will always cost much more than [ ... ]
(Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D MarkII N is the largest
size that can be
On 30.08.2006, at 13:14 , KEN TAKESHITA wrote:
Nevertheless, the point is the same. The photo sensor size is limited
by the max size of a given stepper which can be produced by a one shot
exposure. Canon also produce steppers and it appears that they have
invested a bit more dedicated
- Original Message -
From: KEN TAKESHITA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As Canon themselves admit, cameras with FF
sensors would be too big and heavy to carry. Cameras not carried
would be photos not taken.
They don't have to be as big. The Pentax 645D is in fact smaller and will
have twice
On 8/30/06 7:38 AM, Pål Jensen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't have to be as big. The Pentax 645D is in fact smaller and will
have twice the sensor. Canon make big camera because they sell better than
small ones according to their marketing philosophy (big is expensive; small
is cheap -
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the
release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite
a
bit since the release of the 1Ds
I would like to point out that that white paper is gray at best. Its
purpose is not informational but promotional.
Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what
you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put
another way, if you can not now produce
On 8/30/06 10:00 AM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to point out that that white paper is gray at best. Its
purpose is not informational but promotional.
I agree. It's very obvious in the way it is written. Nevertheless, a good
reading material :-).
Another point is that if
On 8/30/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/30/06 10:00 AM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what
you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put
another way, if you can not now produce the FF
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, K.Takeshita wrote:
I just do not want to become a pro, and have no talent either :-). MZ-S was
fine. But the paper is talking about 1Ds etc. No thanks to even 5D.
What is the comparison in dimensions between MZ-S and 5D/1Ds?
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, K.Takeshita wrote:
I just do not want to become a pro, and have no talent either :-). MZ-S was
fine. But the paper is talking about 1Ds etc. No thanks to even 5D.
What is the comparison in dimensions between MZ-S and 5D/1Ds?
Kostas
-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:56:15 -0700
8Mpixel does pose an advantage over 6Mpixel, presuming all else is
equal. I disagree with your comment Just because one does not
immediately
It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers
usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or
not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal
computer world.
Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype.
G
On Aug 30, 2006,
A point of fact here. Having worked on these kinds of things, the last
being a robot to produce Cell Phone Repeaters (cost $1.5 million), I can
tell you that this kind of equipment is usually one-off. The are built
to customers specs one by one. They certainly are not production line
items. So
or
numbered.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:00:56 -0700
It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers
usually win
When there's a market, there's a way.
Tom C.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 8/30/06 11:40 AM, Tom C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my
decision.
That was my point.
Ken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
.
Tom C.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:00:56
On 8/30/06 12:28 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They certainly are not production line
items. So if you want one specific to producing large sensors you can
get one at little or no extra cost.
I am not an expert of course, but the stepper is pretty much a standard
fixture in any chip
, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:52:57 -0400
For all practical purposes
On 8/30/06 12:42 PM, Tom C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When there's a market, there's a way.
Invest first and create the market, or hype the market first and then
invest? :-).
Which are Canon doing?
Difficult call.
Cheers,
Ken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the
release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite
a
bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more
room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10%
to
25%
I also saw an article just a couple of days ago, stating that the cost
of FF sensor is 10 to 20 times larger than that of APS sized one and
it won't narrow. But I have a bad habit of not bookmarking. Maybe I
read it somewhere in this white paper. I will take a time to read it
more in
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Tom C wrote:
Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere
clamor for a camera with fewer MP.
I posted a question asking for a camera with very few MP. So, does
price go into the 6 vs 8MP dilemma?
Two MP does not sound like alot. Yet, only 8
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:39:47AM -0600, Tom C wrote:
Well 'they' are not lying when they claim to have two more MP. That's not
marketing hype. It is true. So far I have read nothing in the reviews of
Canon's 8MP camera bodies that suggest they perform poorly when held up
against
On 8/30/06 3:07 PM, Toralf Lund, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I finally found where these descriptions were. [ ... ]
Anyway, here is what the Japanese article says;
1. yield from 8 wafer is 200/APS-C, 46/APS-H, 20/FF
2. number of LSI's on a single wafer is 1000~2000. If for example,
quality, then there's
other 6MP models they can buy.
Tom C.
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:44:02 -0400
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:39:47AM -0600
What's needed is a simple number to indicate picture quality. Something
that would, perhaps, indicate the best camera to use to produce a
near-perfect 10x8.
That's what most of us are really interested in, whether or not we
actually want to print 10x8s.
Of course, I realise that in the
But the article went on to say (or perhaps began by saying) that it used
to be worse - around the time of the introduction of the first 1Ds only
5 to 10 of the 80 units would be usable. I don't know enough about IC
production to know for sure how Canon has managed to reduce the number
of
Well now we're getting into printer characteristics as well. If the
native resolution of your printer is 300dpi then you need about 7mp in
6x4.5 equivalent format. Of course if you're willing to put up with 1/2
the native resolution then you would only need a little less than 2mp.
There is
That depends on what you mean by an 8x10? If you mean a matted 8x10
(7.5x9.5 inches) at 300dpi you need 7.5mp in a 2x3 format sensor. So,
the 8mp figure is right in there, while 6mp is a bit small. My little
Oly is 5mp but in a 3x4 format so it produce a 256dpi image at that size
(7.5x10
Of course this completely ignores the fact that a RAW converter
interpolation will give you a bigger file with minimal penalty. A
post conversion PhotoShop interpolation is almost as good. The gain
realized in more pixels far offsets anything lost in the
interpolation process. Thus, I
AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining
more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold
increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may
be for cost reduction in the surrounding circuitry.
Aligning two CCDs comes with it's own
On 29.08.2006, at 03:38 , Paul Stenquist wrote:
But that assumes no further progress in sensor design and capability.
I'm not an engineer, so my opinions aren't worth much, but it seems
that almost all techologies evolve. Based on lens production, it
seems makers like Pentax are betting that
On 8/29/06, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most interesting part in description is Aperture or exposure
control is not necessary ;-)
Not sure if the f/64-group would have cringed or applauded...:-)
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:17:43 +0100, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield
very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a
problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of
semiconductors)
I think that is the price, cost would be in the neighborhood of 4x.
Price could come down a lot if the productions levels were in the same
order of the APS sized sensors. Would you pay a $500 premium for a
24x36mm sensor? That would be a reasonable figure if the cameras were
produced in the
On 29/08/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does stagnate mean in this context? Did 135mm film improve in
the 15-20 years before digital as dramatically as it originally did?
So we will see no more pixelage off APS-C. What is the problem?
I can't really see the point to
On 8/28/06 10:30 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you talking about a Step and Repeat Machine? *
That takes a photograph of the IC artwork, and reduces it in size, then
prints 4 copies of the artwork 1/2 size. Then it does it again and you
get 16 copies 1/4 size, again and you
On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
... But above part is only my guess but should not be too far from
the truth.
The only thing I thought I knew was that the APS-H size sensor was
derived
from the stepper driven limitations, but NOT by its optimum
performance as a
Would you pay a $500 premium for a
24x36mm sensor? That would be a reasonable figure if the cameras were
produced in the same quantities.
--
graywolf
Yes!
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Jostein ?ksne wrote:
AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining
more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold
increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may
be for cost reduction
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:24:21AM +0100, John Forbes wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:17:43 +0100, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield
very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a
problem
Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com
Tue Aug 29 10:37:23 EST 2006
On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
But above part is only my guess but should not be too far from
the truth.
The only thing I thought I knew was that the APS-H size sensor was
derived from the stepper driven
John Francis wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Jostein ?ksne wrote:
AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining
more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold
increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may
be
I agree with you about the 4/3 system equipment being much bulkier
than I expected.
On Aug 29, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
..Today's APS sensor gives performance fairly compatible with 35mm
film
cameras (I know they still need to catch up on shadow details and
dynamic
Den 29. aug. 2006 kl. 18.56 skrev John Francis:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Jostein ?ksne wrote:
AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining
more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold
increase in cost it makes me wonder what
Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 16:04:37 EST 2006
.. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it
would be
ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have
something
like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. ...
Since I don't have one to
pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:04:47 -0400
Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 16:04:37 EST 2006
.. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it
would be
ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have
On 8/29/06 3:24 AM, Jostein Øksne, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining
more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold
increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may
be for cost reduction in
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon
What I don't understand is the feigned negativity or brush-off of an
8MP
sensor vs. a 6 MP sensor.
A 6mp sensor is approximately 2000x3000 pixels.
An 8mp sensor is about 2300x3400 pixels.
At 300dpi printing resolution
8Mpixel does pose an advantage over 6Mpixel, presuming all else is
equal. I disagree with your comment Just because one does not
immediately perceive it [higher resolution] in a given shot, or at
particular print size, does not mean it is not there... . The
improvement is simply small and
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:15 PM, KEN TAKESHITA wrote:
http://www.dialogen.no/foto/EOS_cameras.pdf
I'll look at it again when they get to 36 Mpixel. That's double the
resolution of the 10D, a worthwhile improvement. ;-)
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 8/29/06 9:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll look at it again when they get to 36 Mpixel. That's double the
resolution of the 10D, a worthwhile improvement. ;-)
I chuckle too, but look at their pixel density of a couple of models,
most notably 6D and 50D (50D
Which is more important, the heart or the head? Each of us will decide
and act accordingly.
[Previously, on the PDML]
I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but
using a
wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to
me. I
still like it, I wish I was
Your arse!
You can pull all sorts of shnonsense out of it.
Dave (not meaning to imply anyone here is doing so)
On 8/28/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is more important, the heart or the head? Each of us will decide
and act accordingly.
[Previously, on the PDML]
--
PDML
On 28/8/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
You can pull all sorts of shnonsense out of it.
Dave (not meaning to imply anyone here is doing so)
Why of course not Dave.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Den 28. aug. 2006 kl. 03.11 skrev Ryan K. Brooks:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is.
In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd
if I'm
close to the
On 28/08/06, Takeshita K marinerone at gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is that the current size is the one which produces
the most yield under the current process using the stepper.
It's not the choice by the camera makers or sensor makers etc.
I used to have a link which explains
On 29/08/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is indeed a stepper' issue, and not about the usual yield per
wafer argument.
APS-H size sensor is the maximum size that can be obtained by a one
shot exposure in the lithography process using a stepper. i.e., it's
a stepper-driven size
On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield
very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a
problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of
semiconductors) and lens performance
Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size
sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one,
and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon.
...
We'll see.
Cheers,
Ken
-
And I thought I had seen that Sony's APS-C sensors are now down to $50
Are you talking about a Step and Repeat Machine? *
That takes a photograph of the IC artwork, and reduces it in size, then
prints 4 copies of the artwork 1/2 size. Then it does it again and you
get 16 copies 1/4 size, again and you have 64 copies 1/8 size, etc. When
you get the IC's down to
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size
sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one,
and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon.
And I thought I had seen that Sony's APS-C sensors are now
graywolf wrote:
*My knowledge of this is ancient, they undoubtedly use digital imaging
now, but the principle should be the same. I could do some research on
modern IC production methods. But why? No one is going to hire me to
design IC's for them grin.
I don't know if it's digital or
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote:
My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield
very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a
problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of
semiconductors) and lens performance will become
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise
Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Adam Maas wrote:
The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros
are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey
portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's don't have
the bokeh of those 85's. The biggest complainers seem to be the
On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise
Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics.
They could have chosen several different sized sensors in this size/
price class by the economics, including
Economics are certainly a factor in the choice of that sensor size,
but it was, nevertheless, a choice. And it seems to have become the
industry standard. That will lead to more development and better
quality.
Paul
On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Huh?
On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is
fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me.
-Ryan
1dsm2 and istD user
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros
are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey
portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's
don't have
the bokeh of those 85's. The
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Huh?
On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
The difference of a 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens versus a 50mm full-frame
shot.
My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is
fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros
are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey
portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's
don't have
the
I have to admit that my SMC-F 28/2.8 on my D (more or less 42mm)
doesn't like normal at all, it does indeed feels like WA.
Even my FA 50/1.4 look more normal on my D than my 28... weird.
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is.
In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm
close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a
profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Thibouille wrote:
I have to admit that my SMC-F 28/2.8 on my D (more or less 42mm)
doesn't like normal at all, it does indeed feels like WA.
Even my FA 50/1.4 look more normal on my D than my 28... weird.
Again, please post a couple of comparison photographs
Ryan Brooks wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros
are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey
portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's
The perspective and filed of view you get with a 35mm lens on an
*istD should be almost identical to that of a 50mm lens on a film
camera. That's what the science says, and it is supported by my
experience. I think the difference is in your mind.
Paul
On Aug 27, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Ryan Brooks
On 28/08/06, Ryan Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise
Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics.
I've always assumed that it was the sweet spot for sensor design re
cost vs saleability.
--
Rob Studdert
On Aug 27, 2006, at 8:17 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise
Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics.
I've always assumed that it was the sweet spot for sensor design re
cost vs saleability.
My
On 28/08/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that the current size is the one which produces
the most yield under the current process using the stepper.
It's not the choice by the camera makers or sensor makers etc.
I used to have a link which explains this, but lost
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is.
In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm
close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm
I can see why you're not interested in a debate. You're incorrect on
this one.
Paul
On Aug 27, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is.
Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is.
In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm
close to the subject. The shoulder may
On Aug 27, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the
transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a
~31mm
lens != 50mm
full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing,
and it
makes
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Mark Roberts wrote:
Pentax has already done motorcycles:
http://www.motorsports-network.com/kawasaki/06kaw/zx10.htm (ZX-10)
Plastic mount?
Kostas (Kawasaki fan from the distance)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with
lens design.
However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light
coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a
normal UWA.
But it's still more extreme than with longer
performance of wide angles is of paramount concern.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 2:23 pm
Size: 727 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do
a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200
2.8 acts like a 300 2.8.
So performance of wide angles is of paramount concern.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Full Frame/Canon
Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 2:23 pm
Size: 727 bytes
To: Pentax
By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes
from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their
originally intended angle of view.
I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200
2.8 acts like a 300 2.8.
So
On Aug 25, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
I a way, yes, but with a crop sensor those pixels near the edge
simply
won't be there at all. I'd prefer a slight fall-off, I think...
The issue is not confined to just a slight fall-off of illumination.
With non-perpendicular light paths
Also, don't you get the same kind of problems with a e.g. DX-size (!)
sensor and a lens that's sufficiently wider to give an equivalent
field-of-view?
Not if your lens design for the digital sensor is formulated to
correct the ray trace so as to make the edge/corner rays more
Exactly!
Not that you can not push the design but then you lose more guality. The
fact is that the 35mm based Pentax bodies have a backfocus distance of
about 46mm. Now the physical nodal point of the lens can be somewhat (a
few millimeters) behind that so maybe you can produce a standard lens
On Aug 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Graywolf seemed to suggest that the lens designers are (were) in fact
doing this already on traditional SLR wide-angles, and that it would
be hard to correct the rays even further...
The traditional inverted telephoto designs required for very
I really don't get what's being said here -- old,
film optimized lenses perform well on the full frame
Canons, as evidenced by the L series?
Define well ;-).
Even the best film-optimized Canon glass cannot take
advantage of the full-frame sensors. In particular,
edge performance on
If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with
lens design.
However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light
coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a
normal UWA. So, the argument is put forth by those who do not
Maybe Pentax should get into cars...
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/eos
;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
The Chrysler *ist?
Cotty wrote:
Maybe Pentax should get into cars...
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/eos
;-)
--
--
Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
