On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:14:14PM -0500, Adam Maas wrote: > John Francis wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:02:56AM -0500, Adam Maas wrote: > > > >>Aaron Reynolds wrote: > >> > >>>On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>300mm f2.8 (600mm equivalent in 35mm) > >>> > >>> > >>>And what, pray tell, does this little beastie cost? > >>> > >>>-Aaron > >> > >>Oops, the lens? > >> > >>$7000USD. > >> > >>Gah. But a 600 f2.8? > > > > > >You can get that today. Just crop to the central > >portion of your 35mm frame or digital sensor. > >(Or, for that matter, a teeny-weeny central portion > >of the frame from a 6x7 - anything with a 300mm lens). > > > >Pentax still offer the FA 300/2.8 (around $4500, IIRC), > >or for half that you can go the Sigma route. > > Yes, but you aren't getting 7.5MP from a Pentax that way.
True. But once we get the 10MP sensor, I'd reckon it could be a fairly close call between the central portion of that sensor (albeit only, what, 5.5MP?) and 7.5MP smaller pixels.
