On 2 Jun 2005 at 20:54, 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...:-)
The Canon 1Ds MkII (138px/mm) pixel density is very similar to the *ist D (129px/mm), the density of the Pentax MD digital (111px/mm) is actually very low. I assume that the Canon lenses are at least as good as the Pentax lenses. Since the best Pentax 35mm lenses aren't fully resolved using the *ist D we can surmise that the best lenses are still generally better performing than the sensors in either the *ist D or Canon 1Ds MkII but the cameras offer good resolution vs sensitivity and latitude. The theoretical benefits to come from the Pentax MD would likely be a greater tolerance to poorly performing lenses (which you know it will need) and a likely greater latitude which may be countered to an extent by having to use higher ISOs to reach usable shutter speeds due to slower lenses. Wide angle coverage will also be a problem assuming unless they also intend to bring out new digital only WA lenses. Lets see how close I am to the mark. ;-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
