Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I really beg to differ. This would not be dumb at all, it would be SMART. >Canon and Nikon have already started doing it (Canon's digital-only lenses >are expected at this PMA or in Japan). One of the MAJOR advantages of >digital is that you can get high quality out of a smaller-than-35mm sensor,
In terms of capture area, it makes no difference whether it's film or a digital sensor: A larger area allows higher resolution form a given lens. It's the same principle as the difference between 35mm and 645 or APS and 35mm. Now for your style of shooting - generally not making large prints - the smaller format is acceptable, but the greater resolution possible with a larger capture area is important to those of us who like to make large prints. >and this in turn paves the way for smaller, lighter, faster lenses. There's >no reason to be forced to buy a telephoto that covers 35mm when you're >trying to do nature and wildlife work with a DSLR like the *ist D; That's true. And that's what sub-size sensors are good for. >there's no reason to have to bear the expense, size, and slow speed of what >for 35mm is super-wide-angle, when all you need to cover is the smaller >sensor of the *ist D. As long as you don't need the resolution required for large prints. >I will be surprised and disappointed if Pentax doesn't follow through with >at least a limited series of lenses specifically for the *ist D. Perhaps, but there are many people who will be disappointed if they don't move toward a full-frame DSLR like Canon, Kodak and soon Nikon. There are certainly a lot of us who'll be royally p*ist off if our huge investment in glass (including my 15mm f/3.5) is made obsolete or irrelevant; that is, if we have to have two different lenses to serve the same purpose on a DSLR and a film SLR. Not everyone is going to *abandon* film for digital. Many of us plan on using both...if it's possible/practical. Canon has made this possible with the EOS 1Ds (while also demonstrating the superior quality possible with a larger sensor). >This is exactly what is needed in digital photography, not the continued >application f vestigial technology that's clearly on the way out. I side with Michael Reichmann on this one. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
