William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Robert Gonzalez
If (big IF) Pentax came out with a full frame, 14Mp, K/M compatible
camera next yaar, alot of *istD owners would feel their camera was
obsolete.
What you are talking about here is a change in format.
The real question is not whether
On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 23:02 America/New_York, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, William Robb wrote:
From: Pat White
As film sales volumes go down, there will be less incentive for
companies to
put RD money into the medium, especially when they need to be
putting it
into
On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 16:16 America/New_York, Pat White wrote:
Who knows what films will
be out in five years? Medium-grained 3200-speed, ultrafine-grained
400-speed? I'm keeping my film cameras.
My guess is that by that time, they'll have figured out how to imprint
an array of sensors
]
Sent: 19-Oct-03 19:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
if I had spent $1500 on a camera that will undoubtedly be obsolete
in
less than a year.
You reckon? What's going to obsolete it, then?
And even if Pentax *do* come out with a new
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote:
So now we laugh at the idea that 1.3MP cameras can take photo-quality
8x10's, but we brag about how great our 6MP's are at 11x14's and 16x20's.
And yeah, they're probably not too bad. But when 14MP cameras become
affordable, all of a sudden we'll
The density of sensor chips seems to have stablised. 5mp for PS, 6mp for 2/3
frame DSLR, 11-14mp for full frame DSLR. This is the first time that the top
resolution digital cameras have stayed stable for a whole year. We may be at the
point where there needs to be a breakthrough in IC tech
Hi!
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:06:35 -0400
graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The density of sensor chips seems to have stablised. 5mp for PS, 6mp
for 2/3 frame DSLR, 11-14mp for full frame DSLR. This is the first
time that the top resolution digital cameras have stayed stable for a
whole year. We
You're right. It will always be as good as it is now. I guess I'm speaking
from a personal point of view. I don't think 6 megapixels is sufficiently
hi-res for much of my work. So, while I might like to have an *ist D to
play with now, I would want to replace it as soon as a higher res model is
John Francis wrote:
There are competing demands; to shrink the size of an individual sensor,
and to increase the precision of measurement (roughly corresponding to
bits per pixel). We're not at the technologically imposed limits yet,
but getting beyond the next generation or two is going to
Agreed, I meant to add that!
graywolf wrote:
Only if it cost $1500. If it cost $6000. Most of them would not be
bothered at all.
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
If (big IF) Pentax came out with a full frame, 14Mp, K/M compatible
camera next yaar, alot of *istD owners would feel their camera was
På mandag, 20. oktober 2003, kl. 18:40, skrev John Francis:
Nothing new here - it's just the normal semiconductor technology
progression.
Yep, that was what I was saying in the lines you omitted in you
response. We´ve been discussing this for months :-)
It would have been hard
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think this obsolete next year is more of a mentality than a
technological issue as long as the images are satifactory in the first
place, which I think 6MP is. OTOH, there's no question in my mind that
these *ist D's won't be around as long as any film body. 10 years?
That's one thing that's very cool about film cameras: you upgrade the
sensor by using an improved film, which is why my 30-year-old 6x7 is able
to produce state-of-the-art, 2003, 160Mb images. Who knows what films
will
be out in five years? Medium-grained 3200-speed, ultrafine-grained
Good for you!
Jim A.
From: Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:16:24 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: film vs digital (was *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the
rain))
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003
How have you been discussing for months the fact that sensor densities have not
gone up in the past year? Months ago all you could discuss is that they had not
gone up in the last few months which would prove nothing as the high-end cameras
are usually replaced annually and introduced in time
På mandag, 20. oktober 2003, kl. 21:36, skrev John Francis:
På mandag, 20. oktober 2003, kl. 18:40, skrev John Francis:
Nothing new here - it's just the normal semiconductor technology
progression.
Yep, that was what I was saying in the lines you omitted in you
response. We´ve been discussing
D60 and D100 are both more than 1,5 years old, but OK, they were quite
alone for a while.
What I was referring to was that the limitations, such as diffractions
limits, signal/noise ratio etc, has made further increasing of the
number of pixels less likely. This has been discussed for quite a
- Original Message -
From: Robert Gonzalez
Subject: Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
If (big IF) Pentax came out with a full frame, 14Mp, K/M compatible
camera next yaar, alot of *istD owners would feel their camera was
obsolete.
What you are talking about
- Original Message -
From: Pat White
Subject: film vs digital (was *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the
rain))
Who knows what films will
be out in five years? Medium-grained 3200-speed, ultrafine-grained
400-speed? I'm keeping my film cameras.
I can't help but think
On 20 Oct 2003 at 17:19, graywolf wrote:
How have you been discussing for months the fact that sensor densities have not
gone up in the past year? Months ago all you could discuss is that they had not
gone up in the last few months which would prove nothing as the high-end cameras
are usually
If it went for the same price then as the aps do today, then maybe...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Gonzalez
Subject: Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
If (big IF) Pentax came out with a full frame, 14Mp, K/M compatible
camera next yaar
Bucky wrote:
How about the *ist D? Kinda makes me cringe to think about it...
Makes me cringe to think about it as well. It would make me cringe more
if I had spent $1500 on a camera that will undoubtedly be obsolete in
less than a year. But can't we have a 6x7 thread without someone
if I had spent $1500 on a camera that will undoubtedly be obsolete in
less than a year.
You reckon? What's going to obsolete it, then?
And even if Pentax *do* come out with a new model (which I don't
believe will happen) what's going to be wrong with the *ist-D?
Hi-firmative, SIR!
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19-Oct-03 19:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:*ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
Bucky wrote:
How about the *ist D? Kinda makes me cringe to think about it...
Makes
.
-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19-Oct-03 19:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
if I had spent $1500 on a camera that will undoubtedly be obsolete in
less than a year.
You reckon? What's going to obsolete
digital
slr (with K/M compatibility?). I can see some current *ist D owners trying
to unload their obsolete cameras for the new one.
Jim A.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:29:52 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:*ist D makes me
26 matches
Mail list logo
