I agree with you, Butch. In fact, I have thought the easiest way for Pentax to provide a digital body for their medium format users is to simply put the MF mount on a 35mm format digital body. Why go to the expense of all that extra engineering if you are going to limit the sensor size to 24x36? And, then, is there really a need for a larger sensor than that for a portable camera when you think that doubling the pixel density with give you 35-45 megapixels (based upon the current Canon 11mp chip)?
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:58 PM Subject: Re: Full frame D-SLR - get over it > That�s why I the full > frame sensors will be more relevant for today's MF market than 135. > > DagT > > > This is one of the concepts that has somewhat escaped me, why full frame > sensors are more appropriate in a MF body then a 35mm format body. Earlier > threads were talking about 35mm frame sized sensors. If you put a 35mm sized > sensor in a MF back you have the same set of problems that you have with APS > sized sensors in 35mm based bodies. Lens magnification factor, no really > wide angle lenses, needing higher resolution lenses due to having to enlarge > more for any given print size, etc. A MF sized chip would solve that but > would cost more and have MF's disadvantages to 35mm. Less lens choices, less > depth of field compared to the same angle of view in 35mm, slower flash sync > with a focal plane shutter, slower top speed with leaf shutters. Also, at > full resolution, it would take longer to write to media and less could be > stored onto the media card. > > Pentax is also saddled with the problem of not having an interchangeable > back MF camera, the 645's interchangeable inserts don't count. So they would > need to either design an interchangeable back MF camera, a MF digital body > that takes existing MF lenses, or a whole new body and lens system. My best > guess for that, if they were to do any of the above, would be the digital > body taking existing lenses. > > You then beg the question of how much is enough. Pixel resolution is > somewhat a bell curve, at some point you will have enough pixel resolution > for most applications of most users. At that point the pixel wars will > probably end. I'm GUESSING that a 35mm sized sensor will be able to hold > enough pixels (not necessarily at that point yet) for most amateur and > professional needs. It then makes sense to me to build around a 35mm camera > system as opposed to a MF one. Those pros that need much bigger files then a > 35mm sensor could provide can always get MF backs. Most wedding/event > photographers already have a 35mm system in addition to any MF equipment > they have. > > Butch > > Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. > > Hermann Hess (Demian) > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03
