Hi!
MJ In short, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the *ist D's 23.5mm x 15.7mm
MJ sensor size. There is every reason to expect the image quality is going to
MJ be excellent, clearly better than digicam image quality.
MJ So let's not fret. A DSLR doesn't need a 35mm-sized sensor to be great.
You never know, Pentax may just flood the market with
cheap 14mm lenses :D
--- Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
In short, there's absolutely nothing wrong with
the *ist D's 23.5mm x
15.7mm sensor size. There is every reason to
expect the
Perhaps... and then we'd complain about their quality if they were cheap,
and about their price if they were good. :)
chris
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Brendan wrote:
You never know, Pentax may just flood the market with
cheap 14mm lenses :D
--- Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
I'm not fretting about the *ist-D, it looks to me like a *very* nice
camera and a perfect compliment to a full-frame DSLR, which I hope and
expect we'll have eventually. Perhaps two years, but maybe less.
What's amazing is that this camera appears to be quite competitive with
the
I think it's fine to wait for the bigger sensor (which will inevitably
come) but since I am currently pretty happy with a 4.2 MP E-10 I think
I'll also be pleased with a 6 MP Pentax. However, I also do not think
this is the sweet spot for sensors. I suspect that will be about 20 MP
with 35 mm
The issue isn't quality, it's lenses. All of a sudden that nice 24mm lens
is a 36mm lens, and if you want a lens that gives you the field of view
that a 24mm lens on a film body does, you're going to need to get a 16mm
rectilinear lens, which don't come cheap.
That's just the point, Chris.
6 matches
Mail list logo
