Holy S---!! Pentax's medium format is only $9400!!!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Cylinder liner....
Next: Electric locomotive...
From: MikeWhy on 11 Mar 2010 11:18 "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2602e994c867cf0598c25c(a)news.supernews.com... > In article <hn93o5$v2c$2(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says... >> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as >> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything. > > You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP? 6 micron pixel pitch is 167 lines/mm.
From: RichB on 11 Mar 2010 12:07 On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0500, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" ><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Alfred Molon wrote: >>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says... >>> >>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a >>>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle >>>> $$$ MF glass etc. >>> >>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have >>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close. >> >>A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now? >> >>B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as >>highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything. > >I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers >would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass, >but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my >Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more >film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors, >despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less >resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure >that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I >had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best >handling camera I've ever owned. Judging by your photography posted to the SIs that was money well wasted. Matter of fact, anyone that has submitted photos for the SIs so far have wasted their money on camera gear, when it could have been put to good use on something of which any of them might have an inkling of aptitude. We can rule out photography as a choice judging by everyone's posted entries.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 11 Mar 2010 13:01 On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0500, Bowser wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Alfred Molon wrote: >>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com >>> says... >>> >>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not >>>> a huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide >>>> angle $$$ MF glass etc. >>> >>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have >>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close. >> >>A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now? >> >>B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as >>highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything. > > I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers > would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass, > but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my Nikon, > there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more film means > higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors, despite that the > glass may, theoritically, be capable of less resolution? I'm guessing > yes, You guessed right. Image quality still improves as the sensor resolution increases, even beyond the optical limits of the system. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Val Hallah on 11 Mar 2010 14:09 On Mar 10, 12:30 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <hn7ckt$g4...(a)news.albasani.net>, steph...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a > > huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle > > $$$ MF glass etc. > > 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have > 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close. > > But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it > will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around. > > Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The > body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really > suited as a camera to carry around with you. > -- > > Alfred Molon > ------------------------------ > Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site at that price you can afford to pay someone else to carry it ;-)
From: RichA on 12 Mar 2010 00:00
On Mar 11, 9:29 am, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "steph...(a)yahoo.com" > > <steph...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Alfred Molon wrote: > >> In article <hn7ckt$g4...(a)news.albasani.net>, steph...(a)yahoo.com says.... > > >>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a > >>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle > >>> $$$ MF glass etc. > > >> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have > >> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close. > > >A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now? > > >B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as > >highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything. > > I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers > would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass, > but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my > Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more > film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors, > despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less > resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure > that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I > had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best > handling camera I've ever owned. Given good lens resolution, enlarging was the real kiss of death of film images. |