John wrote:
Nobody has been leading you on, except perhaps a few people here who
still cling to the belief (or, IMO, delusion) that Pentax would decide
to re-introduce a mechanical aperture sensor, or go back to aperture
rings on lenses.
REPLY:
But the new D FA lenses have aperture rings. We
There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax will
release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The only
DFA lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are on the
horizon.
On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Pål Jensen wrote:
John wrote:
Nobody has been
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax will
release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The only DFA
lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are on the horizon.
Pål Jensen wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no new DFA lenses. The high-end fast lenses that Pentax
will release next year are all DA lenses without aperture rings. The
only DFA lens is for the 645. No DFA lenses for 35mm or APS-C are
I suspect the macros were offered as DFA lenses so that they would appeal to
the remaining film users as well as the digital folk. The fact that none of the
projected lenses are DFA is a very clear message.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Brother Aaron,
Sitting here looking at my 67II on the fireplace mantle...
The *istDS is in view, but it is such a sissy camera.
And I think you 'hit the nail on the head' about the 645D - Woman's camera!
Next thing we know, it will come in those silly Hassy designer colors.
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ahhh! of course! And then the road would be paved for the ultimate
digital camera of the Space Age: *istR2D2.
Oh my God that's baaad.
Of course! What did you expect? :-)
Sister Jostein
Derby, That is cool! Regards, Bob S.
On 3/4/06, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Brother Aaron,
Sitting here looking at my 67II on the fireplace mantle...
The *istDS is in view, but it is such a sissy camera.
And I think you 'hit the nail on the head' about
On 4/3/06, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:
Of course! What did you expect? :-)
I would have used a Death Star 85mm
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
According to someone at Pentax Sweden there will be two 10 megapixel
SLR cameras coming this fall. One with shake reuction and the whole
kit and one bare-bone w/o shake reduction. Note that this is not a
confirmed source, just another rumor.
/Paul
Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2 Reduction).
Joking apart, thanks Paul.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Sv: Re: Some more new camera speculation
According
Dario Bonazza wrote on 03.03.06 16:17:
Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2 Reduction).
And third one *istD2N (Nonsense) ;-) Anyway, maybe some more reliable
rumours about new D would appear during upcoming PIE 2006 starting 23.03?
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2
Reduction).
Ahhh! of course! And then the road would be paved for the ultimate
digital camera of the Space Age: *istR2D2.
:-)
Jostein
On 3/3/06, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:
Ahhh! of course! And then the road would be paved for the ultimate
digital camera of the Space Age: *istR2D2.
Oh my God that's baaad.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Jostein a écrit :
Yes, they will be called the *istD2S (D2 Shake) and *istD2R (D2
Reduction).
All news Optio's products are named *?10*: *A10, T10, M10, W10*
So, I think: *K10D *; K is a mystic name for Pentax
Michel
:
- Original Message - From: Gonz
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
John Forbes wrote:
Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses
are worth more than they were new.
Although some
On 2 Mar 2006 at 0:31, Adam Maas wrote:
Full Frame 35mm is simply more demanding on lenses, and requires more
expensive and higher quality glass than subframe APS-C for good performance.
Not entirely, on a pixel for pixel count basis an high density APS-C sized
sensor also requires a lens of
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 at 0:31, Adam Maas wrote:
Full Frame 35mm is simply more demanding on lenses, and requires more
expensive and higher quality glass than subframe APS-C for good performance.
Not entirely, on a pixel for pixel count basis an high density APS-C sized
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Peter Loveday wrote:
I wonder though with a 28mm sensor, if we're moving it by 5mm in
each direction to achieve stabilization, how many 35mm have good
coverage on a 38mm wide rectangle? I can't imagine any DA lenses
doing it (well, the 40 might), and certainly
Sounds good so far!
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:14:10 -0600
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Some more new camera
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:58:07AM -0500, Bob Shell wrote:
The important thing that gets lost in all this techno-babble is that
it WORKS. I can hand hold a 300mm at 1/15 second, without a monopod.
Bob
Ah. Practical experience. Don't you know that disqualifies you
from posting an
@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1 Mar 2006 at 17:01, John Francis wrote:
You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled
on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight
it looks like a bad decision, but presumably somebody thought
. marts 2006 00:16
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 1 Mar 2006 at 17:01, John Francis wrote:
You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled
on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight
it looks like a bad decision
On Mar 2, 2006, at 12:34 PM, John Francis wrote:
Ah. Practical experience. Don't you know that disqualifies you
from posting an opinion here? :-)
Seriously, though - I've heard conflicting reports as to whether
this technology is of any use when panning. Would you know?
I don't shoot
On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
Ah. Practical experience. Don't you know that disqualifies you
from posting an opinion here? :-)
Seriously, though - I've heard conflicting reports as to whether
this technology is of any use when panning. Would you know?
I don't shoot sports,
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:28, John Forbes wrote:
Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are
worth more than they were new.
Of my late purchases looking at
When you disagree with someones point of view it's pissing
moaning, when you concur it's a valid opinion?!!
Dave
On 3/1/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's
embarrassing to even listen to it.
G
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people are just pissed that their 25-year-old
lenses need a whole extra press of a button to work on the new cameras.
Terrible isn't it, especially since the FA lenses give you all those
new features, like USM and IS... They
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
You are not feeling especially smart, either.
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
marketable due to sensor issues.
So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an
issue when it
was shown to
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:26:09 -, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
You are not feeling especially smart, either.
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
marketable due to sensor issues.
So you are telling me
Weren't the early 645s pure mechanical coupling? If so, given
that this is the beast that Pentax is taking into the Pro DLSR
arena, what are the chances that the 645 prototype at PMA does
retain mechanical couplings? Anyone?
-Lon
John Forbes wrote:
Just what is the attraction of a
A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of
emotional assumptions.
Thanks, Bob!
Jack
--- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
You are not feeling especially smart, either.
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about
On 3/01/06 9:54 AM, Jack Davis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of
emotional assumptions.
The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and
performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of
PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. marts 2006 00:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:51:21AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 at 13:11, John Francis wrote:
Hmm. So if the power contacts come back, presumably we would
get
PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. marts 2006 00:01
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Rob,
Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized sensor on digital?
It's much more expensive, both for the body and the lenses (note how much
cheaper the DA macro lenses, for instance
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Why ask only Rob.
Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger
sensors!
The anser is of cource better resolution with less limitations, caused by
the lens resolutuin
On 3/01/06 10:24 AM, K.Takeshita, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax MZ-D was truly ready for the production (some production models are
actually being used within Pentax) but as Bob said, the price killed it.
Something else I remember.
I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote:
Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger sensors!
I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon
mount DSLRs; I could not find one on their website but haven't looked
well enough. Also, wonder why Nikon
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote:
Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger
sensors!
I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon
mount DSLRs; I could not find one on their website but haven't looked
well
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Adam Maas wrote:
Kostas, Kodak discontinued all their DSLR's around a year ago.
Really? What will the pros do now? I see a real market gap and
Pentax should rush!
Not.
Kostas (thanks Adam)
to hear one side of things.
Tom C.
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:28:53 +0100
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You folks
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A lot
of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite shortly
astrophotography. Therefore a lower noise at higher
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Tom C wrote:
Some of you seem to think this is the Pentax Lovers List vs. a discussion
list.
I find it interesting.
Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to the
*istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they want,
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: RE: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jens Bladt wrote:
Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger
sensors!
I think you should first ask Kodak if they still make FF Canon/Nikon
mount DSLRs; I could not find one
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Perhaps so, but many cameras are still in use by photographers.
Canon still made the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N with 28.7 x 19.1 mm
sensors.
That is hardly full frame
William Robb
that.
Agreed, what we *know* about the new Pentax is very little.
Tom
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:21:43 -0600
- Original Message - From: Tom
I don't know anything about what's required for astrophotography, but Canon
has at least one model that is designed for such use. Don't know how good
it is for the purpose, but here you have it:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos20da.html
Shel
From: Cory Papenfuss
new camera speculation
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Perhaps so, but many cameras are still in use by photographers.
Canon still made the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N with 28.7 x 19.1 mm
sensors.
That is hardly full frame
William
Crap...
I hate it when I send things to the list that were menat to be private. :-(
Tom C.
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:36:52 -0700
Offlist so I don't
Very high quality astrophotos can be taken with DSLR's. Sure those that
have unlimited funds can afford to buy the dedicated cooled sensor cameras.
Even they are becoming a little chagrined at how well the new DLSR's (esp.,
Canons perform).
The quibbling is often more like, I spent $10K on
I love it when private mail goes public ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom C
Offlist so I don't get whammed.
I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer
camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it
a
50/50 chance they sell
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction!
That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually.
It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying in
a previous post.
I
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction!
That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually.
It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were
implying
I very much appreciate Bob and Ken and their well-informed posts.
Much of the information Bob gives was pretty well known at the
time (albeit not officially confirmed directly from Pentax), so
I'm not sure why there are so many alternative explanations
for the MZ-D never making it to the store
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By the time it next became feasible for Pentax to consider a
DSLR (though, I'd guess, with a somewhat smaller design budget)
the PZ design team were the ones who got the job. As a result
we got a camera that was ergonomically very close to the PZ-1p.
I
emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Offlist so I don't get whammed.
I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer
camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd give it a
50/50 chance they sell the thing to Samsung.
I think the 645D
, is an expression
of an opinion. It seems many here only want to hear one side of things.
Tom C.
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:28:53 +0100
And there you are, Paul, stomping on them ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] I don't recall anyone here ever saying they didn't want anything
more than the D. Not only do you whine, you grow your own grapes.
From: Tom C
Some of you seem to think this is
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
Something else I remember.
I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for
using their
sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645
(this part
is a second-hand info, but apparently from Pentax source).
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
Kostas, Kodak discontinued all their DSLR's around a year ago.
Yes, and they promised support at the time, but have not provided
it. Recently they raised the price of the rechargeable battery pack
from $ 100 to $ 400! It's like they want
Barefoot, no less. :-). Have to be careful not to cut my feet on some
full-frame lover's broken heart.:-))
-- Original message --
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And there you are, Paul, stomping on them ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:53:02AM -0700, Tom C wrote:
Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering to
the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything they
want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they wanted, why would we want
something
On 1/3/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
Ah but I like you guys and I love your reactions :-)
Masochist!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Bob Shell wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
Something else I remember.
I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for using
their
sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645
(this part
is a second-hand info, but apparently from
On 3/01/06 1:53 PM, Bob Shell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
Something else I remember.
I heard that it was Philips who initially approached Pentax for
using their
sensor (this is true), but their true target was the Pentax's 645
(this part
is a
On 3/01/06 2:03 PM, Adam Maas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doubtful, the sensor in question is distinctly small for a MF digital,
being half the size of the typical 36x48 sensor for MF digital.
According to the story, Philips were looking over the shoulder of Pentax at
645 market which they knew
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:53:02AM -0700, Tom C wrote:
Some of us have compained that Pentax did not have an upgrade offering
to
the *istD. That was met with claims that the *ist D does everything
they
want, 6.1MP gave images with all the quality they
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
I'm sure it will be a nice camera.
I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative
opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with
anothers does not make
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:36:52 -0700
Offlist so I don't get whammed.
I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the
consumer
camera market. I of course can be wrong. If I were a bettor, I'd
give it a
50/50 chance
John Forbes wrote:
Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses
are worth more than they were new.
Although some of the more high end lenses are selling for exhorbitant
prices right now. See
Offlist so I don't get whammed
Wham
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Offlist so I don't get whammed.
I really think that Pentax will not be around for ever in the consumer
camera market. I of course
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no reason to believe the Nikon would be lower noise. In fact, there's
reason to suspect it would be higher noise. I don't recall anyone here ever
saying they didn't want anything more than the D. Not only do you whine, you
grow your own grapes.
It's true of
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
I'm sure it will be a nice camera.
I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative
opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds
On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote:
Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they
(Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax
had solved it at the time. But Pentax respectfully declined. So, Kyocera
was on their own and got back
Ouch that hurt! :-)
Tom C.
Wham
Kenneth Waller
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction!
That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually.
It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were
implying in a previous post.
I could be wrong about your intent though.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise,
resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc
etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor
to meet any specific need at will, why
On Mar 1, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
Thanks for the additional info Ken. So in essence where Pentax
screwed up was
in securing a solid pricing and procurement deal? Having being in
design I find
it hard to understand why anyone would sink that much RD into a
product when
the
!
Regards
Jens
x24mmo, I believe i Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. marts 2006 19:01
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:26:10AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote:
Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they
(Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax
had solved it at the time. But Pentax
On 1 Mar 2006 at 16:48, Bob Shell wrote:
I think Pentax made the right choice. It would probably have harmed
them in the long term if they had come out with a very expensive DSLR
that produced mediocre images.
What a pity, a sad tale indeed regardless of the catalysts that precipitated
On 1 Mar 2006 at 17:01, John Francis wrote:
You think Pentax screwed up. I think they took a risk, gambled
on Philips being able to deliver the chip, and lost. In hindsight
it looks like a bad decision, but presumably somebody thought the
potential gain was worth taking the risk - after
On 3/01/06 5:26 PM, Rob Studdert, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 10:24, K.Takeshita wrote:
Adding to this, Kyocra actually approached Pentax for help when they
(Kyocera) had been plagued by the noise problem (even at ISO100), as Pentax
had solved it at the time. But Pentax
camera speculation
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction!
That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually.
It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were implying
Larger sensors should be quieter, all else being equal. Rarely is all else
equal.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bob Shell
Larger sensors should be quieter, yes, but excessive noise was the
most serious problem with the Philips full frame chip.
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What a pity, a sad tale indeed regardless of the catalysts that
precipitated
its demise.
Yes, I think Pentax obviously made the right decision to not deliver the
MZ-D, when the facts were known. They obviously made the wrong decision
originally to go
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:20:00 -0500
What are you talking about? A normal negative measures 55mm by 70mm! This
24mm by 36mm stuff goes in toy cameras.
When is The Brotherhood getting their 67D, anyways? I'm tired of these
eensie weensie
This one time, at band camp, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are you talking about? A normal negative measures 55mm by 70mm! This
24mm by 36mm stuff goes in toy cameras.
When is The Brotherhood getting their 67D, anyways? I'm tired of these
eensie weensie thingamabobs. I
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I think Pentax made the right choice. It would probably have harmed
them in the long term if they had come out with a very expensive DSLR
that produced mediocre images.
What a pity, a sad tale indeed regardless of the catalysts that
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction!
That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually.
It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were
implying in a previous post.
I could be wrong about your intent though.
well be full frame!
And what's with this 645D nonsense? That thing is a woman's camera.
-Aaron
p.s. come on, you knew he would be back one day.
-Original Message-
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Wed Mar 1, 2006 5:01 pm
Size
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Bob Shell wrote:
Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise,
resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc
etc, when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor
to meet any specific need at will, why stick
On 1 Mar 2006 at 15:32, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I really wish someone would do the 21x28mm format I proposed with the
sensor technology available now. I think it would be a very good
balance in cost and quality. The FoV numbers are pretty nice too,
with given lenses.
Generally less
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:18:51 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess in the end, I am reacting to the categorization of a negative
opinion as whining. Just because it's an opinion that's at odds with
anothers does not make it a whine...
A short, high-pitched, sound is not a
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I really wish someone would do the 21x28mm format I proposed with the
sensor technology available now. I think it would be a very good
balance in cost and quality. The FoV numbers are pretty nice too,
with given lenses.
Generally less waste of
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, John Forbes wrote:
A short, high-pitched, sound is not a whine. But it is when it
goes on and on and on and...
I think that should be in the 2006 PDML Quotes list too. ;-)
Godfrey
No they do not.
But I think that decision was based upon the company they sourced the
sensor from going out of business, although Kodak said they were getting
out of the professional digital camera business at the time. Remember
Kodak is in a frenzy of self mutilation cutting off parts of
I don't.
Dave
On 3/2/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, John Forbes wrote:
A short, high-pitched, sound is not a whine. But it is when it
goes on and on and on and...
I think that should be in the 2006 PDML Quotes list too. ;-)
Godfrey
I agree with that 4:3 format. My Oly has it. It translates to a 10 x 7.5
inch print which gives a 1/2 inch border all around on 11 x 8.5 paper.
That fits a standard 9.5 x 7.5 inch matte cutout nicely so I can just
buy prematted frames. Also it uses the whole image making my 5mp camera
equal to
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
For me at least, I don't plan to throw any more money into Pentax. A
lot of the photography I enjoy doing is night shots, including quite
shortly
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
