I hadn't forgotten that, just felt it common knowledge. I'm curious if the lower resolution factor is still true in the manufacture of new lenses. Are you saying that it is?
Jack --- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remember that while MF lenses deliver lower lpmm in most cases, > they're > delivering that slightly lower resolution to a much larger > sensor/negative, for more effective resolution. > > -Adam > > > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > Haven't been reading that much of the "..More news" thread, but > noted a > > reference to 645D lenses as "giving the best" and I gather that was > in > > reference to image. There was a time when MF lenses lacked the > > resolving power of 35mm. A desired 'creamy' wedding look was > offered as > > the reason. > > Suppose that remains a consideration in the manufacture of MF > lenses? > > > > Jack > > > > > > --- DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>The Nikon-people are saying the same, but that does not make it > >>right. > >> > >>Remember that the requirements made by the FF sensor makes lot of > the > >>Canon lenses useless (at least in vignetting, edge sharpness..), so > >>you have to add new lenses to the cost. > >> > >>If I had to change many of my lenses anyway I'd rather have a > cropped > >>645D. You get the best from the lenses and you get an even larger > >>sensor. > >> > >>DagT > >> > >> > >>>Fra: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>>I'm broke right now, but even I don't see that as a huge price. > >> > >>What > >> > >>>would you have expected to pay for a FF 35mm DSLR even three years > >> > >>ago. > >> > >>>I think the Kodak DCS cameras were about $6000. Which was about > >> > >>half > >> > >>>the price of the equivalent Canon? While imaging chips are > >> > >>probably not > >> > >>>going to halve in price in the next three years, they may fall by > >>>another 1/3 with a savings in the support hardware, (the rest of > >> > >>the > >> > >>>camera that is), of maybe 50% being not unreasonable. We, (yes > the > >> > >>>royal we), could postulate that a FF DSLR would be selling for > less > >> > >>that > >> > >>>$2000.00. Maybe around say $1600.00. How many on this list paid > >> > >>that > >> > >>>much for their *ist-D. Pentax will have to build one, just to > >> > >>compete. > >> > >>>If they can't they're doomed anyway, and I think they know it. > >>> > >>>Paul Stenquist wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Only the Canon pro cameras are full frame. None sell for less > than > >> > >>>>$3000. > >>>>On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:57 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>After Pentax killed the MZ-D/MR-52 in IIRC 2003 there were > people > >> > >>on > >> > >>>>>this list who predicted that Pentax would never introduce a > >> > >>Digital SLR > >> > >>>>>that they would be film forever. The *ist-D was announced, what > >> > >>within > >> > >>>>>a year, in peoples hands in less than 1 1/2 years. Canon has > >> > >>managed > >> > >>>>>to > >>>>>bring the cost of a FF DSLR into the realm of mere mortals. If > >> > >>Pentax > >> > >>>>>can get a FF sensor and build a camera for a price that they > feel > >> > >>is > >> > >>>>>competitive they will build it. Personally I think that Canon's > >>>>>propaganda machine is good enough that FF 35mm format will > remain > >> > >>the > >> > >>>>>holy grail of DSLR development, (not that they don't have a > >> > >>point). > >> > >>>>>Pentax will either have one within the next 3-4 years, (1.3 crop > >> > >>is > >> > >>>>>close enough for government work), be a name on a Samsung > >> > >>product, or > >> > >>>>>be > >>>>>out of the Camera business. This is especially so if the 645D > >> > >>has > >> > >>>>>limited sales success. If I'm right, (and I hope I am, not > about > >> > >>the > >> > >>>>>645D but about the FF sensor), I'll send you a bottle of > Tabasco. > >>>>> > >>>>>Paul Stenquist wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>The *ist was a stopgap film camera. No one considered it a top > >> > >>of the > >> > >>>>>>line offering. I will eat this message if Pentax releases a 1.3 > >> > >>or > >> > >>>>>>full-frame camera. It ain't gonna happen. > >>>>>>Paul > >>>>>>On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:57 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>It was sold as the new top of the line, and in most respects > >> > >>had, at > >> > >>>>>>>least for Pentax top of the line specifications. The MZ-S was > >> > >>the > >> > >>>>>>>Flagship but was soon discontinued anyway. The *ist > >> > >>effectively > >> > >>>>>>>replaced the MZ-S the MZ3/ZX5n MZ-6/ZX-L etc. Don't forget > the > >> > >>green > >> > >>>>>>>button Kludge on the *ist-D didn't come along until there was > a > >>>>>>>wave of > >>>>>>>protest from Pentax's user base in Japan, (and here, but > >> > >>Japanese > >> > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
