Makes no sense. I'd buy canon or nikon FF before I would ever go back to those huge lenses and bodies, especially the 67.
JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson -----Original Message----- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of paul stenquist Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 7:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA* 60-250 at B&H Pentax claims that the 645D is going forward. On May 11, 2009, at 6:57 PM, JC OConnell wrote: > MF is dead forever. There would be FF digital before they ever went > back to those huge bodies and lenses of 67 or 645 size. > > JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) > "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas > Jefferson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf > Of > Graydon > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 5:18 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: DA* 60-250 at B&H > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:07:07PM -0700, Joseph McAllister scripsit: >> From information absorbed by my little noggin way back when, I am now >> under the impression that "optimized for aps-c" meant, among other >> things, that it was an effort to make the light rays more parallel as >> they struck the sensor to prevent the color fringing we see in our >> digital images. Supposedly caused by the angle of incidence of light >> rays to the sensor pixels in the corners and periphery of said >> sensor, > >> which allowed the light ray to strike more than one pixel under such >> circumstances. > > Remember that the sensor isn't sitting out there in the air; it's > got a > cover, the cover has thickness, and reflects and refracts. The rear > lens element reflects, too. Film is an absorptive medium -- the > photon > hits and sticks -- so the optical behaviour of the digital sensor > stack > is considerably different. > > "more vertical" incident light may help with getting consistent > behaviour from the sensor stack; there's certainly no obvious reason > that you couldn't design a full frame lens that way. It'd have to be > the whole lens, though. > > This may be part of Pentax's decision not to go with full-frame > digital; > they'd have to redo the whole lens lineup to get performance they > considered acceptable. > > -- Graydon, who really does think it's going to be APS-C, MF, and > nought > else from Pentax > > -- > 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. -- 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.
