You are correct, a 35mm sized sensor is silly.
Now a 96mm X 122mm sensor (4x5) in a film pack sized housing that needs no
electrical connection to the camera is what I want. Oh yes, it needs to cost
under $100, too.
Guess I will have to wait awhile for that.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
John Celio wrote:
I'm no fan of Kodak but hate to see the other full frame sensor
discontinued:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05053104kodakslrdisc.asp
Folks, what bugs me much more is not the signs of digital age as Shel
pointed out. Consider, now we're back to only one company providing
(albeit mighty excellent) full frame DSLR... It means - lack of real
competition and lack of choice... We're back to 2002 (is it the year when
1Ds was introduced), aren't we?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Fascination with incorrectly-named "full-frame" sensors still irks me. I
know this topic has been beaten to death here, but come on, if only ONE
company is doing it, there must be good reasons for it. No point in listing
what I think those reasons are, though. In my limited experience, those who
want a 35mm-size sensor seem to cling to their desire no matter how much
sense one tries to talk into them.
John Celio
...is really glad to not be working on the sales floor at the camera shop
anymore. dealing with self-righteous asshat customers was getting to be too
much. the digital lab is much less hostile. (:
--
http://www.neovenator.com
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a
statement."
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005
