Haven't been reading that much of the "..More news" thread, but noted a reference to 645D lenses as "giving the best" and I gather that was in reference to image. There was a time when MF lenses lacked the resolving power of 35mm. A desired 'creamy' wedding look was offered as the reason. Suppose that remains a consideration in the manufacture of MF lenses?
Jack --- DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Nikon-people are saying the same, but that does not make it > right. > > Remember that the requirements made by the FF sensor makes lot of the > Canon lenses useless (at least in vignetting, edge sharpness..), so > you have to add new lenses to the cost. > > If I had to change many of my lenses anyway I'd rather have a cropped > 645D. You get the best from the lenses and you get an even larger > sensor. > > DagT > > > Fra: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I'm broke right now, but even I don't see that as a huge price. > What > > would you have expected to pay for a FF 35mm DSLR even three years > ago. > > I think the Kodak DCS cameras were about $6000. Which was about > half > > the price of the equivalent Canon? While imaging chips are > probably not > > going to halve in price in the next three years, they may fall by > > another 1/3 with a savings in the support hardware, (the rest of > the > > camera that is), of maybe 50% being not unreasonable. We, (yes the > > > royal we), could postulate that a FF DSLR would be selling for less > that > > $2000.00. Maybe around say $1600.00. How many on this list paid > that > > much for their *ist-D. Pentax will have to build one, just to > compete. > > If they can't they're doomed anyway, and I think they know it. > > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > >Only the Canon pro cameras are full frame. None sell for less than > > > >$3000. > > >On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:57 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>After Pentax killed the MZ-D/MR-52 in IIRC 2003 there were people > on > > >>this list who predicted that Pentax would never introduce a > Digital SLR > > >>that they would be film forever. The *ist-D was announced, what > within > > >>a year, in peoples hands in less than 1 1/2 years. Canon has > managed > > >>to > > >>bring the cost of a FF DSLR into the realm of mere mortals. If > Pentax > > >>can get a FF sensor and build a camera for a price that they feel > is > > >>competitive they will build it. Personally I think that Canon's > > >>propaganda machine is good enough that FF 35mm format will remain > the > > >>holy grail of DSLR development, (not that they don't have a > point). > > >>Pentax will either have one within the next 3-4 years, (1.3 crop > is > > >>close enough for government work), be a name on a Samsung > product, or > > >>be > > >>out of the Camera business. This is especially so if the 645D > has > > >>limited sales success. If I'm right, (and I hope I am, not about > the > > >>645D but about the FF sensor), I'll send you a bottle of Tabasco. > > >> > > >>Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>The *ist was a stopgap film camera. No one considered it a top > of the > > >>>line offering. I will eat this message if Pentax releases a 1.3 > or > > >>>full-frame camera. It ain't gonna happen. > > >>>Paul > > >>>On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:57 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>It was sold as the new top of the line, and in most respects > had, at > > >>>>least for Pentax top of the line specifications. The MZ-S was > the > > >>>>Flagship but was soon discontinued anyway. The *ist > effectively > > >>>>replaced the MZ-S the MZ3/ZX5n MZ-6/ZX-L etc. Don't forget the > green > > >>>>button Kludge on the *ist-D didn't come along until there was a > > >>>>wave of > > >>>>protest from Pentax's user base in Japan, (and here, but > Japanese > > >>>>users > > >>>>are what Pentax probably really cared about). I have no doubt > that > > >>>>Pentax will change sensors as soon as it makes economic sense > to do > > >>>>so. > > >>>>If a 1.3 crop or full frame 35mm sensor is released next week > with a > > >>>>price/quality ratio that makes economic sense. Don't doubt > that > > >>>>those > > >>>>DA lenses will be suddenly obsolete. > > >>>> > > >>>>Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>The film *ist was a limited offering aimed at newbie amateurs. > It > > >>>>>was built for use with consumer zooms. It wasn't likely that > many > > >>>>>would want to use it with pre-A lenses. > > >>>>>Paul > > >>>>>On Aug 7, 2006, at 6:45 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>They've never screwed with their customers like that before. > > >>>>>>Well not > > >>>>>>until the introduction of the *ist Film and Digital > introduction > > >>>>>>that > > >>>>>>is. Try to meter with a pre-A lens on the film *ist and let > me > > >>>>>>know how > > >>>>>>that works for ya. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>And encourage us to buy new lenses? Gosh, no! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>I just can't see it. They've never screwed with the > customer like > > >>>>>>>that > > >>>>>>>before. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Plus, their pro commitment is still to medium format. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>-Aaron > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>-- > > >>>>>>When you're worried or in doubt, > > >>>>>> Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>-- > > >>>>>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>>>>>PDML@pdml.net > > >>>>>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
