Yeah, right! I bet you also claim to have forgotten more than you know. ;-)
>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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
