Ken Waller wrote:
> What was the size of the images that you were comparing?
Ken,
The pictures I refer to were around 50x70cm, not postcards.
In any case, my statement that "good digital SLR's can match more or less
the quality of 24x36mm film SLR's" means that they compare "more or less",
not
What was the size of the images that you were comparing?
Ken Waller
- Original Message -
From: Dario Bonazza 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
> Consider the following
>With lenses made by Fuji, not Zeiss (how do you pronounce that, anyhoo?)..
Zeiss rhymes with vice.
:-)
Cot
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www
>I wouldn't quite go that far. Good film scanned on a good printer will
>still be better than an image from a 6MP DSLR. But they are close, no
>doubt. Certainly close enough for my needs.
Sorry - that should, of course, read ' Good film scanned on a good
scanner...'
Cheers,
Cot
Zeiss rhymes with nice.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "gfen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ... Zeiss (how do you pronounce that, anyhoo?)..
>
- Original Message -
From: gfen
Subject: Re: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Cotty wrote:
> > >4 -The new Hasselblad H1 is no longer 6x6, it's 6x4.5.
> > Indeedy-doody.
>
> With lenses made by Fuji, not Zeiss (how do you pronounce
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Cotty wrote:
> >4 -The new Hasselblad H1 is no longer 6x6, it's 6x4.5.
> Indeedy-doody.
With lenses made by Fuji, not Zeiss (how do you pronounce that, anyhoo?)..
Its caused quite the uproad on rec.photo.mediumformat or whatever its
called.
> MF users want top quality with g
Consider the following:
1 - It is believed that current top of the line 6 Megapixel SLR's (Canon D60
and Fuji S2 Pro) can match more or less the quality of 24x36mm film SLR's. I
saw the pictures made with my friend's S2 Pro (and Sigma 15-30 zoom) and I
have to admit it's true. nothing worse than
On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 11:27 PM, Mishka wrote:
> And I thought I had too many... You da man!
>
> Mishka
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
>
>
&g
And I thought I had too many... You da man!
Mishka
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
> One with 36+ pieces of costly Pentax glass doesn't just move on to another
> brand quietly
Stop being boring and go out and sail a boat ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist!
> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 October 2002 23:13
> To: Pentax List
> Subject: Re: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
>
>
> I think Jerome r
-Original Message-
From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:16 PM
Pentax had nothing (much) to show. Period. Goshdornit people, can we just
move on?! I mean, really. Don't you still have cameras on your shelves
(apparently collecting d
Nick wrote:
> Well I remember a few years ago, someone here posed
> the question as to why Pentax had not introduced an AF
> 67 camera. I believe the general consensus was
> something along the lines that the motor required to
> focus such large lenses would be much too big for the
> camera body
Forbes magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2002/09/30/0930photokina.html
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
Photography and writing
I don't really follow all of this, mainly because any "new" tech that
comes out, I can't afford, and I'm quite happy with what I've got now..
But, all this talk of IS lenses and converters and other fun stuff..
What's the chance it has nothing to do with 35mm, and that the IS lenses
were intended
15 matches
Mail list logo
