*any* lens that resolves 70lpmm should do. what's the problem? 16 mpixel is probably pretty far from pushing the limits of optics.
best, mishka On 6/2/05, Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > > > > > >
