"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 questio
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
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 usua
- 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.
W
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
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 th
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 fo
>
> 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
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
obso
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 re
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
ava
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 P&S, 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.
The density of sensor chips seems to have stablised. 5mp for P&S, 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 befo
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
of the art.
-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.
TECTED]
> Subject: Re:*ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:30:07 -0400
>
>
>
> Bucky wrote:
>>
>> How about the *ist D? Kinda makes me cringe to think about it...
>>
>&
ral state of the art.
-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.
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 ab
>
> 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?
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
s
20 matches
Mail list logo