what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount support. I don't think it will be that far off.
In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more mature. It would have to "push the pin" for auto-aperture M42 lenses though or it would make no sense over a K body with an adapter. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await afordable full frame digital. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > film. > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact > on DOF. > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: > DOF > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his > mother knows that! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > William Robb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with >> this issue. >> >> "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly >> greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. >> What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." >> >> Full article at: >> >> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ >> >> > > > >
