Len, there are still *new* cameras in the $20K range. The "price drop" you claim is a misconception, IMHO. What you see now is 35mm DSLRs and compacts with the same (or better) pixel count that the MedF/LargeF gear had 10 years ago, but it's not the same thing. Different market, different chips, different technology altogether.
Looking at one particular price segment, though, you can see an amazing increase in bang for the bucks. At the moment, with CCDs priced the way they are, and with the customer base Pentax has, I'm pretty certain it would be a total waste to put a 24x36 chip in a 35mm camera house. Another point is that Pentax 645 is at the moment the only big 645 system without digital support. Jostein ----------------------------- Pictures at: http://oksne.net ----------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: RE: What would you do with a 24x36 digital chip? > Then you missed the whole $20K to $2K price drop over the last 10 years. > > Len > * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 7:19 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: What would you do with a 24x36 digital chip? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Unless you've been asleep for quite a while, the prices of digital > > > cameras has been decreasing quite nicely over time, as well. > > > > Absolutely. The technology in today's Barbiecam was once horrendously > > expensive. > > Quite nice for Barbie, but if you look more serious cameras, > > you will see > > that the evolution happens just the same way as it has done > > for computers. > > The price stays as high as the market is willing to pay, and > > the changes are > > in what you get for the money. > > > > It's not about sleeping, Len. > > > > Jostein > > > >
