I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be.
Tom C. "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." >From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards >Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 > >But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old >lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. > >What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. > >-Aaron > >-- >http://aaronreynolds.ca >http://battersbox.ca >http://hardballtimes.com > >-----Original Message----- > >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards >Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm >Size: 1K >To: [email protected] > >The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) > >The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of >a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor >being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use >the lenses as intended. > >It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, >it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. >Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with >cheap APS-C bodies is another question. > > >Tom C. > >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or >numbered." > > > > > > > > >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards > >Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 > > > >That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. > > > >Bob W wrote: > > > > >That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take > > >over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a > > >35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of > > >the sensor is irrelevant on its own. > > > > > >-- > > >Cheers, > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer > > >>little & less quality than bigger & better quality. > > >>I expect this to continue... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >-- > > > >Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern >America's > >favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. >Cats > >are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely >dependent > >on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything > >useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it > > > >P. J. O'Rourke > > > > > >-- > >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 > >-- >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
