Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 4:19:13 AM, Mark wrote:
MC Thanks Frantisek. I'll definitely look into those - they have to be
MC shorter than 24mm to work , but now that you mention it, I think John Shaw
MC talks about those in one of his books.
MC - MCC
There is plenty such lenses on
Well, whatever chip they use, they better bring on the Pentax digital
body awfully bloody soon!
I had the opportunity to shoot the 2001 Tokyo Motor Show with my
brother's D30 and while it was a pleasure shooting digital with a proper
SLR rather than a point and shoot, the D30 ergonomics and
From: Jeff Tsai
snip... btw, I got my first picture published in
Car Driver this month! Look for the write-up on the TMS by Peter Lyon;
I took the prototype Skyline GT-R pic for the article!
Cheers.
Jeff
http://www.lumine.net/driving/
Jeff,
Congratulations! I will have to look
Pentax digital SLR
Well, whatever chip they use, they better bring on the Pentax digital
body awfully bloody soon!
I had the opportunity to shoot the 2001 Tokyo Motor Show with my
brother's D30 and while it was a pleasure shooting digital with a
proper
SLR rather than a point and shoot, the D30
Jeff T. wrote:
I had the opportunity to shoot the 2001 Tokyo Motor Show with my
brother's D30 and while it was a pleasure shooting digital with a proper
SLR rather than a point and shoot, the D30 ergonomics and interface
leave much to be desired... btw, I got my first picture published in
Thanks Frantisek. I'll definitely look into those - they have to be
shorter than 24mm to work , but now that you mention it, I think John Shaw
talks about those in one of his books.
- MCC
Mark,
have you considered using a movie/16mm/8mm/video prime
in front of your CP950? These
Pål wrote:
PAJ Just look at Olympus soon to be released digital slr with
PAJ interchangeable lenses. It may set the standard.
Right now the only standard they may set is the normal focal
length. Everything else is subject to change in the close future.
It's interesting to see what the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Pål Audun Jensen
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New Pentax digital SLR
snip
They only ones who can justify this cost are people who are producing
lot
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:22 AM
Subject: RE: New Pentax digital SLR
Cesar wrote:
I don't see how the MZ-D is already obsolete.
It is obsolete because the chip is far more expensive than those the
competition, and Pentax for that matter, will use real soon.
I
the pros who bought into the LX were. And I guess that is the
gist of it.
Ciao,
graywolf
- Original Message -
From: Pål Audun Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:22 AM
Subject: RE: New Pentax digital SLR
But you can't sell a less than top
Several times now people have alluded to this Olympus interchangeable lens
digital camera. Is there any information available on it? It seems like
olympus might really have the upperhand hand here since (I assume) they will
be designing an entirely new lens line specifically for digital -
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Lawton
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Pentax digital SLR
Several times now people have alluded to this Olympus interchangeable lens
digital camera. Is there any information
Mark wrote:
So you are right - it does not make sense to devote a lot of effort to
building a high end digital that will soon be obsolete. However, given the
inevitability of digital, some articulation of a plan to adapt to the new
technology from Pentax would be wise. Given that this
Mark wrote:
So you are right - it does not make sense to devote a lot of effort to
building a high end digital that will soon be obsolete. However, given
the
inevitability of digital, some articulation of a plan to adapt to the new
technology from Pentax would be wise. Given that
But isn't this exactly what Pentax have done? They have said
that theres no
point in releasing the MZ-D prototype as showed at Photokina
because its
essentially obsolete already. Hence, they will make a more
competitive
digital camera based on the same platform instead.
Pål
-
I think
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Kent Gittings wrote:
I think you are missing some info. The chip in the Dimage 7 is the same one
that is in the Nikon D-1x which is 5.24 MP and 23.7mm x 15.6mm. It's a
matter of semantics.
When you see a CCD array listed as 2/3 inch it doesn't refer to the actual
size
Jos,
I would say the manufacturer can program such information about the
geometric distortion into the lens, so it would be transferred to the camera
while using it, just like we have now with other lens data.
Frits Wüthrich from the UK at the moment.
Jos from Holland wrote:
I see some more
I would say the manufacturer can program such information about the
geometric distortion into the lens, so it would be transferred to the
camera
while using it, just like we have now with other lens data.
Frits Wüthrich from the UK at the moment.
Good point, Frits, but an (additional)adjustment
On 8 Dec 2001 at 17:51, Jos from Holland wrote:
I see some more opportunities for small CCD cameras. What about the (much)
larger D.O.F.? I did not see much discussion about this point. For some time
I thought that the larger D.O.F of smaller CCD size was a disadvantage for
digital
I totally agree that the enhance D.O.F. of small format digitals is a boon
in macro photography. It opens up whole new creative possibilities. But,
for every door that opens another closes - the ability to employ a narrow
DOF in portraits, for instance, is not present. I've tried creating
Mark wrote:
I think that full-frame CCDs and smaller ones may well coexist. Mike Johnston
recently mentioned professional wildlife photographers who don't want to
upgrade to the latest Canon D30 because it's CCD yields only 1.3x focal
length magnification. For most of us a full-frame CCD will
Mike wrote:
The only effort to standardize chip size that I'm aware of is being led by
Kodak, who are urging adoption of a 4/3rds-inch chip size. Small chip sizes,
far from being a dead end, will are what will be used in consumer cameras.
The market for these will be vast--actually, already
Pål Audun Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark wrote:
I think that full-frame CCDs and smaller ones may well coexist. Mike Johnston
recently mentioned professional wildlife photographers who don't want to
upgrade to the latest Canon D30 because it's CCD yields only 1.3x focal
length
I think the issue is more of a concern that Pentax will not move fast
enough and will miss an opportunity. I for one would be happy to just hear
a statement form Pentax about what they intend to do.
Your analogy to computers is a little off the mark. Computers offered new
functionality
, December 06, 2001 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Implications for optics WAS: New Pentax digital SLR
Kent G. wrote:
I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same
aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody
settles on 1.3x or 1.6x
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Pentax digital SLR
Mark wrote:
I think that full-frame CCDs and smaller ones may well coexist. Mike
Johnston
recently mentioned professional wildlife photographers who don't want to
upgrade to the latest Canon D30 because it's CCD yields only 1.3x focal
length
Of Mike Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Pentax digital SLR
And, now, Pal, here we are totally DISagreeing.
Pal wrote:
Although, I have some sympathy with those who want faster Pentax equipment
introductions, I fail to see the sense
system.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Mustarde
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Pentax digital SLR
On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:12:41 -0600, you wrote:
snip
If Pentax could
Kent G. wrote:
I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same
aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody
settles on 1.3x or 1.6x remains to be seen.
Kents,
I know you're agreeing with ME here so for me to agree right back again is
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent G. wrote:
I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same
aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody
settles on 1.3x or 1.6x remains to be seen.
Kents,
I know you're agreeing with ME here so
Although, I have some sympathy with those who want faster Pentax equipment
introductions, I fail to see the sense in wanting an utterly out of date
digital slr. Firstly, its generally assumed industrywise that the small
size chips are a dead end. Full frame chip is the way of the future.
Ooh! An on-topic thread, what a find! Ooh, I even started it. Yippee ;-)
PÂl writes:
Although, I have some sympathy with those who want faster Pentax equipment
introductions, I fail to see the sense in wanting an utterly out of date
digital slr. Firstly, its generally assumed industrywise
- Original Message -
From: Pål Audun Jensen
Firstly, its generally assumed industrywise that the small
size chips are a dead end. Full frame chip is the way of the future.
Thirdly, Pentax have clearly stated that they want to
make a COMPETITIVE digital slr in the near future. In fact,
Cotty wrote:
PÂl wrote:
Although, I have some sympathy with those who want faster Pentax equipment
introductions, I fail to see the sense in wanting an utterly out of date
digital slr. Firstly, its generally assumed industrywise that the small
size chips are a dead end. Full frame chip is the
I just re-read the following, and my reply doesn't make sense. Read a
revision after for some semblance of sanity...
Pal wrote:
Although, I have some sympathy with those who want faster Pentax equipment
introductions, I fail to see the sense in wanting an utterly out of date
digital slr.
On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:12:41 -0600, you wrote:
snip
If Pentax could duplicate [the D30] its quality
for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price and make use of K-mount lenses it would have a
sure winner on its hands in no time.
A 3.3mp or better K-mount digital for $1000 - 1500 sounds like a
winner to me,
Well said Cotty!
Exactly my own point of view at the moment ...
(delaying buying a 3-set of limited lenses until things clear up :-)
Regards, JvW
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:43:22 +, Cotty wrote:
If there is anyone at Pentax reading this, or anyone knows anyone at
Pentax, please copy and
Pål wrote:
I've been told (something that doesn't prevent it from being bull***, but
anyway) that Pentax have decided to use another chip in the MZ-D.
Theres no reason to automatically assume that it will be a different camera
and that it will use a chip smaller than 24x36. In fact, you can
This seems to be in keeping with the look of how things are panning out.
It must be obvious to the whole industry that the success of the Canon
D30 has highlighted the need for medium-priced pro/am digi SLR. With the
previous 6MP Pentax vapoware, the price would have been well within the
Well, I just got the the engineers from Philips Semiconductor to buy me
lunch so the day wasn't a total loss ;-)
The people I met with today didn't have any information on any of the Philips
CCD products (as I expected) but one of them said he could easily find out
if Contax is using the Philips
40 matches
Mail list logo
