> fra: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I like wide angles, and from what I've seen the Canons wide angles on > > full frame is not very good. I don't think the full frame Pentax lenses > > will do much better, so they will have to make new, larger and more > > expensive wide angles anyway. The vignetting of my 14mm in *istD is better > > than the vignetting I get with the A20mm on full frame with film (and it > > will probably be worse with a sensor). > > Isn't Pentax 35mm wide angle selection wider than 645?
645 goes down to 35mm, and the 645D has an FOV of 1,3. So with an additional 24mm you'd have almost as wide range as the APS-format. > > So the best combination for me would be the small APS dslrs for ordinary > > use and a large 645D for the special occations, just like I the > > combination of MF and small format today. > > For many photographers, the best combination could be FF for studio and APS > for field use. I'd do that, if I could, but I'd hate to have two different > mounts. So 350 + 1Ds MkII is fine, while *istDS + nothing doesn't fit well. > IMHO, *istD + 645D is not better than combining *istD + EOS 1Ds MkII. Even if you got more mpx/less noise and in addition the other characteristics of a larger sensor/film format? The out of focus characteristics is one of the reasons why I still use my MF. So the only difficulty is that you would need two different sets of lenses, but they would still not overlap completely in the wide angle range. > > Another question is why pentax would want to make a camera that competes > > with its own 645D camera. It is expensive enough to develop one of them. > > Perhaps for selling it, instead of letting most people pick a 16MP Canon or > a 12MP Nikon. Pentax will compete with the APS 12mpx Nikon (but maybe not with the D2x), but the 645D gives them an advantage over the Canon, just like the FF always will have some advantages over APS. DagT
