From: stephe_k on
Bowser wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)> wrote in message
>> My point was that pixel pitch below a certain level with most MF glass
>> is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a
>> threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs.
>> It's sorta like thinking how using techpan might be useful with 35mm
>> film camera with really good glass, it's overkill for a 120 film
>> camera and no way could you ever use the resolution the film is
>> capable of with MF lenses.
> Here again, my experience with a special B&W file in the Hassy seems to
> indicate otherwise.

I'd agree most blad optics don't fit this statement. But this isn't a
blad camera :-)

From: bob on
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:52:31 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)> wrote:

>Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!

cheaper than a Hasselhofblad!
From: Alfred Molon on
In article <e560e$4b9ab539$546accd9$13071(a)>,
spamtrap(a) says...
> You don't even
> understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.

Nope, you are not expressing yourself clearly.

There are full frame transfer and interline transfer CCDs, but you are
talking about "full frame CCD", which is imprecise.

With "full frame" cameras people usually refer to cameras with 24x36mm
sensors. See here

Alfred Molon
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at photo sharing site
From: Alfred Molon on
In article <hnehls$rio$1(a)>, stephe_k(a) says...

> No problem? First test I pulled up show only REALLY good ones can pull
> those types of numbers at optimal settings. Most don't
> Stephanie

What MTF do those lp numbers refer to in the test?

Alfred Molon
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at photo sharing site
From: David J. Littleboy on

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)> wrote:
>>> The 45mm lens is a bit too wide for
>>> the role (35mm equivalent of a 36mm lens), and the 75mm a bit long.
>> The 45mm would be fine here as a normal lens. I use 65mm on 6x7 and 40mm
>> on 24x36.
> For The Love Of Dog, Montresor! I beg you, don't open up that cask of
> worms. While I prefer a slightly wider "normal" lens as well, even today
> the ghost of Oskar Barnack haunts the industry. I can't see Pentax/Hoya
> bucking that "Conventional Wisdom."

I don't think it was Oskar's fault. The "normal" lens is the widest lens you
can make easily with the Triotar, Tessar, and Planar sorts of designs, and
any longer lens would require a larger camera. This conventional wisdom was
foisted on us by lazy camera designers well before 1912. (The Kodak Brownie
was 1900 and the Planar design was early 1890s, for example.)

> While I though about exchanging my 45mm f/2.8 for an autofocus model,
> I never got around to it. Instead, I replaced the standard focus screen
> with a split-prism one. Should I decide to buy a 645D, I'll regret that
> decision.

Doesn't the AF system beep at you when you use MF lenses on the AF versions
of the Pentax 645?

As in another note, I'm using mostly MF lenses on the 5D2. The extremely
accurate distance scale makes testing for and setting acceptable hyperfocal
distances much easier. I took the 40/2.0 out for some snapshot shooting the
other day, and had no trouble whatsoever. Sure, I had to work marginally
harder, but even with AF, I think about where I want the plane of optimal
focus to be, look for something that the AF will work with, and do the
focus/recompose drill. The only difference with MF is that I have to crank
the focus ring at one point in the process until the AF system beeps. (And
while people complain about the 5D2 AF system, the center AF point is as
good as any AF point in any camera, and being a cross sensor, will focus on
things that you'd have to twist the camera to focus with a split image prism
or rangefinder.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Cylinder liner....
Next: Electric locomotive...