-Original Message-
From: Larry Colen
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:54 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: 645Z vs FF
I want one, I just don’t want one more than I want what $8500 + lenses
could get me in terms of a couple of K3s and lenses.
Is that some kind of coded
subject brightness ratios that cause extreme clipping in digital sensors.
Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:55 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: 645Z vs FF
On Apr 15, 2014, at 2:52 PM
Am 15.04.14 20:55, schrieb J.C. O'Connell:
Ricoh trys to make a big deal that the 645Z sensor is 1.7 times the size
of a FF
sensor (24x36) but its not really that much bigger.
Sensor area is like engine capacity. The more, the better. There's
simply no substitute.
Ralf
--
Ralf R.
On 15/04/2014 11:54 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Apr 15, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/04/2014 12:55 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
I dont want an expensive 645 that can only use limited expensive bulky
645 lenses.
Neither do I, but I'm still glad they made it.
Ricoh trys to make a big deal that the 645Z sensor is 1.7 times the size
of a FF
sensor (24x36) but its not really that much bigger.
The real significant size jump is from APS-C to FF which is 2.25 times
bigger sensor. I want a
FF Pentax K mount DSLR that can use legacy FF K lenses and get
On 15/04/2014 12:55 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
Ricoh trys to make a big deal that the 645Z sensor is 1.7 times the size
of a FF
sensor (24x36) but its not really that much bigger.
It's enough bigger that it seems to make a hell of a difference if what
the original 645 is any indication. If I
On Apr 15, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/04/2014 12:55 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
Ricoh trys to make a big deal that the 645Z sensor is 1.7 times the size
of a FF
sensor (24x36) but its not really that much bigger.
It's enough bigger that it seems to make a
7 matches
Mail list logo
