well aps digital is at or near the bottom of the digital slr market now ( depending on if you count 4/3 system which isnt that big a market share). So going upward from aps does make sense, but to skip over FF (24x36) especially when the quality would be visibly higher without much increase in camera size ( already has legacy registration distance) does not make sense to me. I bet there are many more potential buyers with loads of FF 35mm lenses than there are potential buyers with loads of 645 or 67 lenses out there too.
JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:16 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA* 60-250 at B&H I'm sure you are aware that the opposite is true. 35mm was the last of the line in film photography (not counting 1/2 frame and miniature) starting with large sheets of various sizes (after glass negs) from 11 x 14 to 4 x 5, then the 3 x 4 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. Roll film came later for the large and small folders, then the box cameras for home use. Finally, 35mm, first 1/2 frame then what we now call full frame. Then 126 (aps-c) and 110. As technology continues to improve over the next 20 years, I suspect the sensor density and size will make for smaller cameras (especially in depth) with better images, and smaller and lighter lenses. Maybe even usable cell-phone cameras with 30x micro-zoom lenses and 250 GB of flash RAM. GPS, phone, LED flashlight & high speed flash combo, inertial gyro stabilization (450,000 rpm 1/16th gram rotors) with sensor mounted shake reduction, 3200 fps HD-Cinema capabilities. You youngsters on the list will see this, and love it. Me... There will still be those of us who feel more "pro" hauling around 2 or 3 kilos of camera & lens, of course. On May 11, 2009, at 18:42 , JC OConnell wrote: > None of this makes any sense to me. The point of medium format in the > film era was higher quality than 35mm. But it didnt skip from 35mm to > large format, there was 645, 6x6, 6x7, then 4x5. Going from aps to 645 > ( asumming they do ff 6x4.5, less than that might as well do 35mm > 24x36mm) is like skipping the more reasonable sizes in terms of cost, > size, weight, and especially lens availablity. I think the market for > FF digital (24x35mm)would be much greater appeal than going to 645 or > 67. Joseph McAllister [email protected] http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
