Am I mistaken, or wasn't the Minolta CLE also sold in a different skin
as a Leica?
Dave King wrote:
I'm a big Minolta CLE fan also. I sold my Leica M camera years ago to
get one. It doesn't have the build quality of an M, and the auto
exposure shutter electronics can be finicky (don't
Leica) info.
http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners:
Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Am I mistaken
SNIP
Any filtering of this nature would not be done at the lens level. A
lens is an optical device, and the best thing it can do is accurately
translate everything it sees to the sensitive/recording layer. This is
what all lenses strive toward. If any type of resolution lowering were
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
It is precisely the randomized nature of film that alaising does not
occur. There is no grid, so there is nothing to beat against, so to
speak.
So maybe the answer is to randomize the sensor array, Captain? Of
course, while keeping the dilithium crystals aligned...
: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
SNIP
Any filtering of this nature would not be done at the lens level. A
lens is an optical device, and the best thing it can do is accurately
translate everything it sees to the sensitive/recording layer. This is
what all lenses strive toward. If any type
: filmscanners: Minolta
DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
--- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the advances in RAM technology over the
past 10 years I am
predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too
distant future (5 years or
less). The significance of this camera will be a
drastic
Frank,
Memory has increased at a rate of about 2 every 1.5
years. There is good reason to believe that this will
not change a lot during the next few years to come.
Even with new technologies being developed (if it
succeeds and can be used for imagers) it takes years
to get it ready for
At 07:43 AM 6/30/01 -0600, Frank Nichols wrote:
I wonder if it would be posisble to create a randomized pattern of sensors
on a CCD/CMOS chip?
This flies in the face of all known sampling theory!
I suspect that the optical system in most scanners provides
more than enough filtering to limit
At 07:42 AM 6/30/01 -0600, Frank Nichols wrote:
Robert,
I understand your hesitancy, however, you make several assumptions that I
didnt.
1. SNR remains at todays levels.
2. Sensitivity remains at todays levels.
3. The array would be small - why not a 4 x 6 with a 10x increase in
density? that
Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snippage]
possibility of 6 Megapixel CCDs that are the same size as a 35 mm frame, I
have to wonder if a $3k film scanner is a smart investment right now.
I for one have hundreds of images already on 35mm film I want to translate
to digital, so the film
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't really believe in film-grain aliasing --
film grain is essentially non-periodic, or, more
accurately white noise -- ie, containing
an even distribution of frequency elements from
DC to infinity.
I don't see why that excludes aliasing of the CCD
Herch wrote:
However, there is no way I could use a D-1x, or an F-5 and a
set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering.
Rafe wrote:
I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about
the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a
better image, all around,
Herch wrote:
However, there is no way I could use a D-1x, or an F-5 and a
set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering.
Rafe wrote:
I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about
the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a
better image, all
Right now, I have three film cameras, a bunch of lenses and
a Nikon LS30 film scanner. I *don't* have thousands of
dollars to spend on a digicam. So I just want to get the
best out of the gear I have, and that's why I'm here on
this list. :)
It's a pivotal time, and it makes buying
At 07:37 PM 6/29/01 -0400, Dan H. wrote:
I figure on spending $10-20k when all is said and done (spaced out over a
period of 2-3 years). I'm not opposed to spending $3k of that on a very
high quality film scanner, and several thousand for a top-notch SLR and pro
lenses. But I have to wonder if
I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about
the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a
better image, all around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V,
and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi.
Not sure I believe it, myself, but it is very provocative.
Based
on the advances in RAM technology over the past 10 years I am predicting a 1Giga
Pixel camera in the not too distant future (5 years or less). The significance
of this camera will be a drastic reduction is the required size of lenses by
using software digital zooming - this will be
--- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the advances in RAM technology over the
past 10 years I am
predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too
distant future (5 years or
less). The significance of this camera will be a
drastic reduction is the
required size of lenses by
At 01:54 PM 6/28/01 +0930, Mark T. wrote:
Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta
Dimage 7 digital camera.
5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499.
Those specs numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a
skinflint like me...
Oh,
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast
on 35 mm format. In another year or two there really
won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
Only if the prices also come down. I can't see the point in buying a 3Mpix
digicam when I can buy a good
: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast
on 35 mm format. In another year or two
* be under our respective kitchen tables when this
discussion hits the List. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:56:19 +0100
- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Steve wrote:
A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can
delete
the bad ones
Steve wrote:
The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures -
I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film.
If all you ever want is screen resolution I'd agree. But most
people want to print things, and that takes more resolution.
The average person doesn't understand this;
I note that Sony has a new Digital camera which uses a nice little 3
CD-RW disk capable of storing about 150 megs of info, and of course, it
is re-writable. The disks are about $5 each here (worth about $1.50, but
that's supply and demand, I guess) Still a LOT cheaper than flash
memory. The
Walter Bushell wrote:
_ AFAIk the cameras only support 8 bit output. Adjusting brightness
color on 24 bit images does result in artifacts, one can up the bit depth
for those resolutions to avoid the math problems, but still it's a
restricted dmax. Then if we are having problems
Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta
Dimage 7 digital camera.
5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499.
Those specs numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a
skinflint like me...
MarkT
From: Shough, Dean
Sent: Wednesday, June
27 matches
Mail list logo
