Obviously their marketing arms for various devices didn't speak to each other. The Marketing blurb for Photo CD's (6mp images), basically said that 6mp was the equal of 35mm. The document that contained that has apparently disappeared from the Kodak web site. That doesn't stop it from having been there. If they were saying 14mp somewhere else at the same time that just makes their duplicity the worse.
graywolf wrote: > No Kodak was saying 14mp back when I bought my Nikon Coolpix 100 (According > to > the receipt I ran across the other day that was in early 1998). Now their > sales > literature may have said something different but that was the figure that I > got > from their website back then. IIRC, that was in comparison to their 100 speed > negative film. > > Hey, remember, I was the first pro-digital guy on this list. That was back > when > all you folks were saying no one would pay that much for a camera, and I was > saying if it makes you money it is cheap. Of course I still don't have a > DSLR, > but then I am not making money with my cameras anymore either. > > Graywolf > Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com > Blog: http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> Actually Kodak's sales literature, (propaganda), originally said it was >> 6mp, oh yes and wonder of wonders their high end photo, >> ("professional"), CD supplied 6mp. Funny how it became 14mp when they >> offered products with higher resolutions... >> >> (and they wonder why no one trusts them...) >> >> graywolf wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- 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.
