It does make me wonder when I hear now about "physically impossible" products like APS sensors with low noise, etc. I hear too many of these definitive engineering proof arguments that turned out to be dead wrong.
>>> graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/5/2007 9:13 AM >>> Things change. I can remember when all a photojournalist needed was a couple of Leica bodies and 3 lenses (35,50,90). Before my time he could get by with a couple of Rolleifexs; and before that all he needed was a Speed Graphic with one lens. There was quite a bit of argument about what resolution was equal to 35mm film. I (and Kodak) always said 14 megapixels. The fact is that for most publication work about 5mp seems to be all that is really needed. Kind of to put things in perspective, how many remember when they were saying that memory density was about as high as it could go? That was back in the days of 64mb memory modules. These days you can get a 4gb flash card about the size of your thumbnail. As I said, things change. Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog: http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ Steve Desjardins wrote: > Funny. I remember about 6 years ago when people claimed that we would > need 24 MP to equal 35 mm film. If anyone had actually described > today's situation at that time few would have believed them. Besides, I > could never affros that Canon. Or better, I could never justify paying > that much. > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/5/2007 12:03 AM >>> > I dunno about that. The 1DsmIII is pushing the limits of what 35mm > glass is capable of. While a ~22MP 645D wouldn't necessarily compete > well (Although the Mamiya ZD back is selling every unit Mamiya can > push out, at a similar cost to the 1DsmIII) a higher-rez unit might > well be competetive, and there's a lot more resolution headroom with > good MF glass. > > -Adam > > On 12/4/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> An interesting user review of the new Canon 1Ds MkIII, which confirms > my >> feeling that the 645D was swimming upstream without the spawning >> possibilities... >> >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mada-iiis.shtml >> >> I would consider this very bad news for an eventual 645D if it were > ever >> introduced. >> >> -- >> The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence > is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University > football team. >> -- P. J. O'Roarke >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. !SIG:4756b406231401016118041! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
