Pål you miss my point. When Medium format gave a huge advantage in
quality over the output from 35mm I would agree. The difference in
output between the MF digital and 35mm full frame digital is bound to be
much lower. The pixel density of the Pentax won't lead to that much of
an improvement in noise over the 35mm sized sensor. I haven't done the
math, and there may be counter intuitive results, but I don't think so.
Canon's fast glass may not be as good wide open as the Pentax 645
glass. On the other hand they are certainly superior at any aperture
wider than 2.8
Pål Jensen wrote:
Peter wrote:
"No matter what Pål believes about the relative equality between Pentax 645 lenses,
in cost and capabilities, and Canon L lenses. There is at least one important aspect
where the 645 lenses fall short, speed. You don't see too many Pentax Medium format f2.8
zooms. or for that matter f2 or faster primes. That alone will put the the 11mp Pentax
645D at a competitive disadvantage with the Canon 16mp EOS based DSLR. Pentax will see
the writing on the wall cut their losses and not ever release it. That's bad enough."
REPLY:
The lack of fast lenses for medium format (film) didn't stop MF in being a
viable alternative. The fact is that fast lenses isn't needed. Using 1000ISO
slide film an a 645 gives equal result as 100ISO slide film in a 35mm camera
with a fast lens. Granted, you won't get the MF advantage but you are not
handicapped. For digital the relations will be similar. Besides, high-quality
digital will probably be prefered for nature/outdoor and studio use where lens
speed isn't that important. Often, faster lenses are less desireable for hese
purposes due to lower optical quality and more flare.
Pål
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
