The sensor is only about 15% higher pixel density than the current 6mp
aps systems. I just did a quick back of the envelope calculation but I
would expect Canon lenses to be at least equivalent on that sensor to
the the lower resolution 645 lenses will be on the 18mp sensor in the
645d.
Jostein wrote:
One thought that bugs me with the Canon 1Ds MkII is how the heck the
Canon lenses can resolve enough detail to make 16 mill. pixels
worthwhile on a 36x24mm chip.
I suspect it doesn't.
In my mind, at least, a MedF digital makes more sense in this respect.
Pixels spread out on a larger area. This will have some implications
on the evaluation of lenses too. I'm sure some photo journal is going
to pick up on that pretty soon, and compare the Mamiya 645 digital to
EOS. :-)
To tell you the truth, I've already started saving for a digital MedF.
My the time I have the money there should be at least a couple of
models to choose from, but heck...:-)
Cheers,
Jostein
----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
The problem is there is a Canon competitor to the upcoming 645D, the
EOS-1DS. Look at the resolution specifications there's less than a
10% difference in resolution. Less than the EOS TX to the *ist-D.
Pentax will have to significantly under sell not just any medium
format competition but also
the Canon to capture any market share. Professionals still using MF
who haven't moved to Canon or Kodak, not many to Kodak I guess, will
be weighing the difference in cost and advantages of Canon L lenses,
vs the Pentax 645 lenses. I don't think Pentax will win many back,
that's not to say that the Pentax lenses are inferior, just that the
Canon is more versatile, and the image output is "good enough".
P�l Jensen wrote:
Christian wrote:
But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked
Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of
mythical
stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc.
To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out
with
something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras
around. Going
for the bottom of the market is no longer being odd-ball it's being
stupid
and generic and setting them up for a failure in the marketplace...
IMO.
I'm not saying it is nice that Pentax doesn't at present offer a
high-end K-mount body. But the fact is that the company have stated
in public that they intend to make DSLR at all levels (you may
choose to not believe them), after they have secured a user base. I
don't think this qualifies for not playing the cards right. I don't
believe Pentax can sell an EOS-1DS clone; precious few high-end
Pentax users would buy one (and there aren't that many of them
anyway) and not a single Canon user or potential Canon buyer would
be interested unless it significantly outperformed what Canon can
offer, something thats not very realistic. Pentax high-end market is
strictly in medium format. This market is in addition virtually
unexploited and no Canon equivalent competition is in sight in this
segment. The 645D proves that Pentax is serious about high-end
digital and theres nothing indication that Pentax will forever only
make entry level *istD clones.
P�l
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
