i thought about it too: 8mm would be a "semi-full-frame". which is, of course, better than nothing.
best, mishka On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:58:51 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fisheye lenses are going to be a problem with any APS digital camera. > Perhaps the next pentax witll be a 35mm sized sensor. Although an 8mm > fisheye would probably give you a pretty good effect, even with an APS > camera. > > > Paul > On Oct 19, 2004, at 10:28 PM, Mishka wrote: > > > no, but i like to use my fisheye lenses. not to mention, wide-angles > > but speaking of 144M, why stop there? why not 288M and 32bit? > > > > best, > > mishka > > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:12:52 -0400, Paul Stenquist > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That's your opinion. I've sold a bunch of stock photos, made numerous > >> 12 x 18 prints, and shot numerous magazine articles with my *istD. My > >> clients find it more than adequate. Extremely sharp 144 megabyte > >> 16-bit > >> files are adequate for most uses. Are you shooting billboards? > >> > >> > >> Paul > >> On Oct 19, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Mishka wrote: > >> > >>> if isd* were adequate, i would have already gotten one. > >>> > >>> mishka > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:42:04 -0400, Paul Stenquist > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> I think you'll see a new TOL Pentax SLR digital within a year. Once > >>>> you > >>>> dip your toe in the water, you might as well go in all the way. And > >>>> let's not forget that the *ist-D is quite adequate for almost all > >>>> applications right now. Better will be great, but Pentax has already > >>>> produced a digital SLR that is decisively topped only by very > >>>> expensive > >>>> pro cameras. I think the next Pentax DSLR will be a relatively > >>>> affordable 8 or 10 megapixel unit. That would be in keeping with how > >>>> they position the brand against the market leaders. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Paul > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
