Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A=20pentax=2D discuss=2Ddigest=20V1=20=231646 ?=
On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 10:04 PM, Rob Geraghty wrote: The eX and 1270 aren't part of the current crop. You really want to look at output from the 1290 and C80. I'm shocked the 1270 rated lower than the eX, because the 1270 is altogether a better printer. We had an EX, upgraded to a 1200, upgraded to a 7500. I'd say that the biggest difference between the 7500 and the EX/1200 is that the 1200 gave us the ability to print some nuclear unrealistic colours that we cannot print with the pigment set of the 7500. Of course, they are colours that are also not available in chemical colour printing. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A=20Pentax=20Digital=20NEWS=21=20Part=20one? =
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote: Looking at the specifications - Magnification 0.8x with 50-mm lens set to infinity and -1.0 m(-1) So that *does* mean a tiny viewfinder. Keep in mind that not all the 24x36 original frame is shown, so you start with a small image. Add that .8x magnification, and you get what, about 1/3 to 1/4 of the size of the MX viewfinder? Or am I still missing something? I think so but I'm afraid I'm missing the same thing. It looks as if the magnification spec above refers to magnification in relationship to view of the actual scene (or how the human eye sees it), rather than to the image being put on film. (After all the magnification ratio between the image on film and the image in the viewfinder is the same no matter what lens you use and how it's focused, so why specify 50mm at infinity?) -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
