On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Given the same format proportions, a 9Mpixel sensor is likely about
2440x3660 pixels
Not bad!
Actual dimensions claimed by Cypress are 2434 x 3710
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05110701cypress9mp.asp
:-)
I'd describe this as a useful
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the same format proportions, a 9Mpixel sensor is likely about
2440x3660 pixels
Not bad!
Actual dimensions claimed by Cypress are 2434 x 3710
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05110701cypress9mp.asp
I'd describe this as a useful step up from 6
What worries me is that Samsung wants the body but not the glass.
Though maybe, probably, it's about margin and market niche.
Will Pentax get the sensor for Photokina as part of a trade agreement
(body access for sensor access)? That would seem a typical arrangement.
Yes, 9mp would be a
What do you mean? The pictures on those sites clearly show a rebranded
18-55, as several people pointed out. What makes you say they don't
want the glass?
j
On 12/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What worries me is that Samsung wants the body but not the glass.
Though maybe,
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, 9mp would be a significant improvement over 6mp.
And if the price is right, 6mp bodies prices will have to
drop like bricks. And quickly.
Significant is a matter of opinion. Remember that 6 vs 8 Mpixels is
an area measurement, not
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What worries me is that Samsung wants the body but not the glass. ...
If the camera is using a Pentax KAF mount, I don't know that it
matters at all. Folks buying a Samsung branded DSLR that uses Pentax
mount lenses will naturally buy
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax body but not glass? (was Re: Samsung GX-1L?)
What worries me is that Samsung wants the body but not the glass.
Though maybe, probably, it's about margin and market niche.
Will Pentax get the sensor for Photokina as part
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax body but not glass? (was Re: Samsung GX-1L?)
What worries me is that Samsung wants the body but not the glass.
Though maybe, probably, it's about margin and market niche.
Will Pentax get the sensor
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Pentax body but not glass? (was Re: Samsung GX-1L?)
Yes, 9mp would be a significant improvement over 6mp.
And if the price is right, 6mp bodies prices will have to
drop like bricks. And quickly.
Significant is a matter
What I mean is that you the the 18-55 package but someone else's glass
label.
That's not Pentax, except perhaps for the package. And that's not a
significant
photo product by any streach.
And why buy Pentax glass given the popularity of the Schneider name?
Old-timers know Schneider from the
Collin,
I'd argue that the only people who know the Schneider name are
fossils, most likely to buy a digital PS to snap the grandchildren
instead of a digi SLR.
Regards, Bob S.
On 12/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why buy Pentax glass given the popularity of the Schneider
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: Pentax body but not glass? (was Re: Samsung GX-1L?)
What I mean is that you the the 18-55 package but someone else's glass
label.
That's not Pentax, except perhaps for the package. And that's not a
significant
photo product by any streach
Interesting.
You know, I only care about Pentax because that's the mount of the
lenses I have. As long as the lenses are good, and relatively
state-of-the-art bodies are introduced that will take those lenses, I
couldn't care less what name is in them.
If, say, Cosina introduced a 12MP K mount
At 03:06 PM 12/22/2005, William Robb wrote:
If they stay with the 2x3 aspect ratio, approximately 2450 pixels x 3675
pixels.
Hardly a huge inprovement in ability to make a larger or higher resolution
print.
William Robb
Yes, but it's enough to meet the minimum requirements of some stock
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:08:30AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, 9mp would be a significant improvement over 6mp.
And if the price is right, 6mp bodies prices will have to
drop like bricks. And quickly.
Significant is a matter
you can make a digital file of *any* (finite) size.
best,
mishka
On 12/22/05, Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:06 PM 12/22/2005, William Robb wrote:
If they stay with the 2x3 aspect ratio, approximately 2450 pixels x 3675
pixels.
Hardly a huge inprovement in ability to make a larger or
On Dec 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:08:30AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, 9mp would be a significant improvement over 6mp.
And if the price is right, 6mp bodies prices will have to
drop like
At 07:23 PM 12/22/2005, Mishka wrote:
you can make a digital file of *any* (finite) size.
best,
mishka
What you suggest is upsizing the image to meet the spec, but that doesn't
provide results quite as nice as having a sensor which can actually create
a file that large at its native
Not to mention the fact that the first lens shown is a lightly modified
SMC-DA 18-55.
--
I wonder if it will have full SMC coating? Or will bypassing that be how
Samsung achieves a price advantage?
Joe
i know that, but i also think that having a file size requirement
is silly.
best,
mishka
On 12/22/05, Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:23 PM 12/22/2005, Mishka wrote:
you can make a digital file of *any* (finite) size.
best,
mishka
What you suggest is upsizing the image to meet the
I think it's somewhat silly also, but I don't run the stock agencies. I
would like to be able to sell some images through them one day, however.
take care,
Glen
At 10:06 PM 12/22/2005, Mishka wrote:
i know that, but i also think that having a file size requirement
is silly.
best,
mishka
On
Stock agencies are quite happy with images from 6 megapixel cameras
that have been upsized to the stock house's normal size requirement,
which is generally about 50 megabytes. If you upsize a RAW when
converting, the results are very good.
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Glen wrote:
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the first lens shown is a lightly
modified SMC-DA 18-55.
--
I wonder if it will have full SMC coating? Or will bypassing that be
how Samsung achieves a price advantage?
Joe
From the Photo, the coating looks identical to the
- Original Message -
From: Glen
Subject: Re: Pentax body but not glass? (was Re: Samsung GX-1L?)
If they stay with the 2x3 aspect ratio, approximately 2450 pixels x 3675
pixels.
Hardly a huge inprovement in ability to make a larger or higher resolution
print.
Yes, but it's
24 matches
Mail list logo
