I've been kindof thinking about this too. But I've been thinking more along the lines of medfo lenses with USM. Think about it... a 645 or even 67 lens with a USM driven AF.
Nick --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > gfen, > > Boy, I gotta admit you have a very interesting idea > there... > > > Bruce > > > > Tuesday, October 1, 2002, 9:38:10 AM, you wrote: > > > g> I don't really follow all of this, mainly because > any "new" tech that > g> comes out, I can't afford, and I'm quite happy > with what I've got now.. > g> But, all this talk of IS lenses and converters > and other fun stuff.. > g> What's the chance it has nothing to do with 35mm, > and that the IS lenses > g> were intended for the 645 system? > > g> 645 IS lenses: There's a market NO ONE has, yet, > and probably won't... > g> Canon, Sigma, and Nikon don't have MF cameras > (although I believe that > g> Nikon makes Bronica lenses?). > > g> It would be easy to corner a market that doesn't > exist, if the existing > g> 35mm IS lenses are all based on Pentax patents > (as I've read), then > g> presumably they don't have to license it out to > any other manufacturers, > g> and if the P645 is considered a favourite among > field photographers, > g> imagine having stabilized lenses on something > like that. > > g> I would say that IS 645 (or 67) lenses would far > outweigh a digital back > g> among wildlife photogs, etc, especially (as I'm > lead to understand), most > g> MF digital backs need to be tied to a PC to use > them. Its also been said > g> many times that the Pentax pro segment is 645, > not 35mm. Finally, haven't > g> we seenupdated MF cameras from Pentax both > relativly recently (645nII, > g> 67II), are there contacts that might support this > feature? > > g> OK, someone shoot me down! > > ===== Nick Wright __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
