On 16 Feb 2005 at 8:23, Keith Davison wrote:
>
> > In a way this isn't that bad, since it would still allow aftermarket
> > solutions for deeper IR....and with those at US$350, I doubt Canon
> > would be any cheaper
>
> You can always convert an EOS 300D yourself, for little cost..... except
> perhaps to your nerves............
>
> http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmodnew.html
The problem/complexity is that the IR-block filter is nearly always
combined with the anti-alias filter....without the AA, you loose
image performance....so you must put an AA back in....
Also, for the US$350, you get a dedicated IR-camera, with (opaque
#87) IR-pass filter mounted (and AA included), hence no more hassles
with separate filters for each lens....just like the BTFR (between
the film rail) filter solution with analog camera's....
I personally would like an even darker IR-pass filter, but unless
sensor sensitivity goes up, that would gain you less ASA than with
HIE....digital ain't much better than analog in this department,
yet....:))
> >
> > Let's wait until the feature is perfectionized in the 1Dsa....:))
>
> You're getting me going again..........
I wonder how Canon could become convinced that the 20Da is a good
idea, market-wise, if only the Japanese market can convince
them....what market share of HIE does Japan have?
I still believe this camera is more pointed at astrophotography than
IR/artistic....maybe Japan has more of the first than of the latter,
so that this camera still becomes a success....
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
