frame A900, where's Pentax?
Yes I have. My point is that FF generally, almost universally today
Means a 24x36mm sensor. This is because DSLRs using 24x36 designed
Lenses are predominantly available in FF and less than FF. All the
Other formats, 4/3 etc. don't really have two or more different
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
even though Full Frame is generally used to mean one thing by
the average user, it is technically not a correct use of the term.
Exactly. Words and phrases can change their definition by shifts in common
usage but I
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:11 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
(old message snipped)
I think hell just froze over, but I have to agree with JCO here. Full
Frame
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think hell just froze over, but I have to agree with JCO here. Full
Frame is technically just full frame for the basic format (As the new
PhaseOne P65+ is 645 full frame) but in common usage it refers
specifically to
, 2008 8:17 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
I think hell just froze over, but I have to agree with JCO here. Full
Frame is technically just full frame for the basic format (As the new
PhaseOne P65+ is 645 full frame) but in common usage it refers
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
Dave
--
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
At a given Mpixel sensor, FF yields less noise
And sharper image vs APS because the pixels are
Larger and the lenses are relatively sharper compared
To those larger pixels. Same way 4x5 is better than MF,
Or MF is better than 35mm.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
I pointed out that Olympus has a
different platform that was intended to be the size it is, in which
context
it is indeed full frame, albeit not 35mm full frame.
In fact that was me, and I was using the common usage of the term,
which refers to 36x24mm sensors on a 35mm-based
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
(snip)
Now I learn that Phase one has announced an upcoming product, and
significantly they called it the world's first FULL FRAME 645 medium
format
camera system. Their words, my
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
The idiocy is that a 24mm lens is *always* a 24mm lens. The focal
length only
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can share lenses. Which of them
is full frame, I wonder... ?
8 x
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, PN Stenquist wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can share lenses. Which of
them is full frame, I wonder... ?
8 x 10
A
PN Stenquist wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm roll
film. And many of those cameras can share lenses. Which of them is
full frame, I
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:40:43AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, PN Stenquist wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can share
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pointed out that Olympus has a
different platform that was intended to be the size it is, in which
context
it is indeed full frame, albeit not 35mm full frame.
In fact that was me, and I was using the common
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
The
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
... The thing about the 24mm lens 'being' a
24mm lens has more to do with the lack of lens choices wider than
24mm, especially primes for those of us who prefer them.
The reason for this is the use of SLR lens mounts that constrain lens
designs
Yes, but
only sharper at the point of focus..
The system with smaller sensor will show a larger depth of focus...
The depth of focus is best compromised for my photography at a size
somewhere in between APS-C and FF (24x36)
Greetz Jos
JC OConnell wrote:
At a given Mpixel sensor, FF
On Oct 21, 2008, at 07:36 , JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since medium format already has/had so many formats,
645,6x6,6x7,6x8,6x9
Etc, I strongly doubt any camera company or photographers are going to
Us the simple term FF
Snip
How this branch of the conversation began
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip Not everyone needs to shoot at
ISO 128,000 and 15 frames per second. Or wants to.snip
15 frames per second? ~Only~ 15 frames per second? I laugh in your
general direction:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, frank theriault wrote:
15 frames per second? ~Only~ 15 frames per second? I laugh in your
general direction:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010601casiof1.asp
Aim high, my friend. You don't want 60fps, you ~need~ it. Now!
insane.
G
--
PDML
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jos from Holland
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:58 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Yes, but
only sharper at the point of focus..
The system with smaller sensor will show a larger depth of focus
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:29 , PN Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:29 , Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, PN Stenquist wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
The
and m43 will have serious IQ advantages,
particularly at high ISO's.
m43 better IQ than 4/3. How?
You're crazy. You really are.
Regards, Anthony
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and m43 will have serious IQ advantages,
particularly at high ISO's.
m43 better IQ than 4/3. How?
You're crazy. You really are.
Regards, Anthony
You might actually try reading what I said. I was comparing m43
2008/10/22 David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/22 David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know
2008/10/22 David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/22 David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I
done it, you've turned me into a Grammar Nazi.
P.P.S. Bugger, now I've invoked Godwin's Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2008 10:01 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam,
I did read what you said and understood what you said (as well as your
grammar would permit). The problem is, despite what you intended to say,
your words say something different. You made mistakes, and screwed
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Adam,
I did read what you said and understood what you said (as well as your
grammar would permit). The problem is, despite what you intended to say,
your words say something different. You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Interestingly ehough, I understood exactly what he wrote, and interpreted
it
correctly.
It must be a Canadian English vs Australian English thing.
Did JCO hijack your mail account?
Clearly Olympus has decided not to play the FF game either. As for
Sony, remember that they are essentially Konica -Minolta with a lot more
money.
I really don't known how a pro level camera would help Pentax's
reputation. It's not like we'd start to see a bunch of Pentax lenses at
sporting
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly Olympus has decided not to play the FF game either. As for
Sony, remember that they are essentially Konica -Minolta with a lot more
money.
Oly is stuck with a lensmount that is incapable of using a much larger
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
I really don't known how a pro level camera would help Pentax's
reputation. It's not like we'd start to see a bunch of Pentax lenses at
sporting events. Wedding guys would be the best
William Robb wrote:
For weddings and portraits, I would like something closer to 24x36 (enough
smaller that some sort of shake reduction can be had in body with 35mm
format coverage lenses, perhaps 20x30mm), and 12-14 MP.
This should give enough of an increase in pixel size to give better
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For weddings and portraits, I would like something closer to 24x36 (enough
smaller that some sort of shake reduction can be had in body with 35mm
format coverage lenses, perhaps 20x30mm), and 12-14 MP.
This should give
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve Desjardins
Sent: Monday, 20 October 2008 11:16 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Clearly Olympus has decided not to play the FF game either. As for
Sony, remember that they are essentially Konica
On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Olympus 4/3 DSLRs have all been full frame, always. It's just that
they are
the full frame of a different format, which has never been 35mm based.
Exactly.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
2008/10/21 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Olympus 4/3 DSLRs have all been full frame, always. It's just that they are
the full frame of a different format
The same can be said of APS sensor DSLRs.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Sony A900 has in-body SR at 24x36.
It shouldn't be surprising that this is possible.
Think of an unstabilized image that suffered badly from camera shake.
45 pixels of blur on a K10D would be a huge, image-ruining amount,
Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 3:11 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
2008/10/21 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Olympus 4/3 DSLRs have all been full frame, always. It's just that they
are
the full frame of a different format
Dario Bonazza wrote:
William Robb wrote:
For weddings and portraits, I would like something closer to 24x36
(enough smaller that some sort of shake reduction can be had in body
with 35mm format coverage lenses, perhaps 20x30mm), and 12-14 MP.
This should give enough of an increase in pixel
On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:10 AM, David Savage wrote:
Olympus 4/3 DSLRs have all been full frame, always. It's just that
they are
the full frame of a different format
The same can be said of APS sensor DSLRs.
First, the 16x24 and 15x21 mm sensor cameras that are referred to as
APS sensors
I'll probably be able to get my D700 by the time Pentax comes out with a FF.
Not that i care at all for FF or not, but i love the low noise, low
light photos i have been seeing from the camera.
If i stay on with the equine photos, the D700, or maybe even the D300
would be a boon for the l;ow
full frame in the DSLR industry TODAY means DSLRs
that use legacy 35mm SLR film lenses and 24x36mm sensors.
APS/ 4/3, whatever are not full frame cameras
By todays general usage of the term.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
DSLR as, overfull frame? Super
FF?
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC
OConnell
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 3:35 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
full frame
In other words, Cotty's hat may decompose before he has to eat it.
I suppose that would make it more tender...
Rick
--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, too, BTW. It would be foolish for Pentax go try to
make a
full-on pro system camera like the 1D or the
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't worry folks, I got it ;-)
I agree, too, BTW. It would be foolish for Pentax go try to make a
full-on pro system camera like the 1D or the D3, but they do need
something like a D700, A900 or D5. I expect we'll get it, though not for
a while.
Well,
frame A900, where's Pentax?
Full Frame means that the sensor is the total size of the format as it
was
originally designed. Any format.
The 35mm derived sector of the industry doesn't own the moniker, even if
some of its users choose to appropriate the words to their exclusive
use.
So what would
2008/10/21 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Leica has a DSLR that's larger than the lenses designed to fit it?
No.
http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/s_system/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
image circle lenses.
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC
OConnell
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:11 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Leica has a DSLR that's
smaller than a standard 4/3 sensor.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Anthony Farr
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:49 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax
20, 2008 8:49 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Leica has a DSLR that's larger than the lenses designed to fit it?
If you mean that its format is bigger than its lens's coverage, no. The
lenses, body, sensor are all part of an integrated
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC
OConnell
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 12:19 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Does this 4/3 leica dslr use legacy 35mm leica-R lenses? If it does
Than its NOT a FF camera in the general usage
Adam,
Some corrections:
- Panasonic and Leica together collaborated on the design of the
Digilux-3 and Lumix DMC-L1K bodies. While mechanically identical, they
have different JPEG rendering firmware, each tailored to their brand's
preferences in color and grayscale image processing. All
Of
Anthony Farr
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 9:41 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
It's not a 4/3 camera, it's much bigger. It's bigger than 36mm x 24mm.
The
Leica S2 will have a 45mm x 30mm, 37.5MP sensor. That's why I asked,
So
what would
I give up =/
http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_1218.gif
regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC
OConnell
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 1:18 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax
Anthony gave up thusly:
I give up =/
http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_1218.gif
I think that sums up my reaction nicely, as well.
JCO, are you even paying attention to what other contributors to this thread
have said? It sure seems like you aren't.
John
--
http://www.neovenator.com
Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Anthony gave up thusly:
I give up =/
http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_1218.gif
I think that sums up my reaction nicely, as well.
JCO, are you even paying attention to what other contributors to this
thread
have said? It sure seems like
Yes I have. My point is that FF generally, almost universally today
Means a 24x36mm sensor. This is because DSLRs using 24x36 designed
Lenses are predominantly available in FF and less than FF. All the
Other formats, 4/3 etc. don't really have two or more different
Size sensors being used for a
Sony now has a FF camera?
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead of you? Really? Sony? The
company that made the Walkman and the Betamax? I mean
you've been making SLR's since what, 1952? Sony's been
making them since...?
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 1:08 PM
To: pdml
Subject: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Sony now has a FF camera?
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead of you
Sony has an FF lens line. They purposely restricted their offering of
their DT crop-specific lenses and maintained a better offering of FF
lenses, even when the restrictions didn't make sense (the complete
lack of a Sony-branded f2.8 normal zoom for the A700, despite the
availability of the Tamron
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 1:08 PM
To: pdml
Subject: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Sony now has a FF camera?
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:08:29AM -0700, Brendan MacRae wrote:
I should remember the thing is going to cost $3000.
Makes me feel a little bit better.
That's almost the entire point. Pentax don't think they can
sell $3000 cameras. And at that price point I must admit that
I'd wonder about
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:08:29AM -0700, Brendan MacRae wrote:
I should remember the thing is going to cost $3000.
Makes me feel a little bit better.
That's almost the entire point. Pentax don't think they can
sell
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Pentax hasn't even been concentrating on entry-level kit, they've been
completely
: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Sony full frame A900, where's Pentax?
Pentax hasn't even been concentrating on entry-level kit, they've been
completely absent in that market since January and will remain so
until the K2000D starts showing up on shelves
On 19/10/08, Brendan MacRae, discombobulated, unleashed:
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead of you? Really? Sony? The
company that made the Walkman and the Betamax? I mean
you've been making SLR's since what, 1952? Sony's
--- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/10/08, Brendan MacRae, discombobulated,
unleashed:
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead of you? Really? Sony? The
company that made the Walkman and the Betamax? I
mean
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sony now has a FF camera?
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead of you? Really? Sony? The
company that made the Walkman and the Betamax? I mean
you've been making SLR's since what,
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sony now has a FF camera?
channeling Seth and Amy from SNL
Really, Pentax? You're going to allow Sony to jump
into the FF market ahead of you? Really? Sony? The
company that made the Walkman and the
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sony now has a FF camera?
I should remember the thing is going to cost
$3000.
Makes me feel a little bit better.
K, I'm done.
-Brendan
The upside
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brendan MacRae
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sony now has a FF camera?
I should remember the thing is going to cost
$3000.
Makes me feel a little bit
77 matches
Mail list logo
