RE: DOF and format size (was: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.)
I totally agree with your assessment of DOF. In addition I think the perceived DOF of digital prints is as good as it is possibly because as long as the DPI of the blowup is less than the eye can perceive and lower than the pixel count of the original image the DOF doesn't appear to shrink as the print gets larger. This maybe the reason 3-4 MP images looks so good in 8x10 blowups and why digital doesn't really have to match the theoretical 32 MP performance of fine grain film. Something to consider in the overall equation. Be interesting to try this with a digitally scanned negative or positive image and see if it holds as you get larger blowups compared to using an enlarger on the original negative. Anybody want to do a report on this? Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Farr Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: DOF and format size (was: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.) - Original Message - From: dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] (snip) DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-stop. Print magnification has nothing whatsoever to do with it. - But print magnification has EVERYTHING to do with it. Until now I have kept my silence WRT this subject but no more. Too frequently anecdote and intuition have been been offered as informed knowledge. The facts follow. The DOF concept is based on the circles of confusion (COC) of the out of focus part of a photograph being either smaller than the unaided eye can appreciate, in which case the subject matter will seem acceptably focussed, or large enough for the same unaided eye to see the unsharpness of it. Quite simply, when the enlargement factor of a print is increased then the COC of nearly focussed areas will become larger and will cross the threshold between small enough to pass as sharp and large enough to be deemed unsharp. Photographers who either criticise or praise different sized formats for their DOF characteristics are correct only as long as the developed film or a contact print (or 1:1 enlargement) is being viewed unmagnified. Otherwise, a 22mm standard lens on a 110 camera will produce the same DOF as will a 43mm lens on 35mm (the statistical standard lens), or a 75mm lens on 6x4.5cm, a 90mm lens on 6x7cm, or even a 320mm lens on 8x10in, as long as the shooting aperture is always the same and the prints being judged are always the same size, and regardless of differences in DOF of the unenlarged negatives. WARNING: ANECDOTE AND SUPPOSITION FOLLOWS. Digital cameras seem to bend theses rules somewhat because the imaging chips have optical characteristics of their own to confuse the equation. CCD pixels prefer to look straight ahead unlike film which easily accepts exposing light from oblique angles (the apparently fatal flaw of the full frame Philips chip proposed for the MZ-D). That narrow acceptance angle may lend CCD produced images more apparent DOF (my guess anyway) the same way as the CCD array in a scanner has great DOF even without a lens. That's my ~theory~ anyway for the long DOF that some list members have reported from their digicams. BTW the DOF scale on lenses for 35mm cameras are more suited to viewing as projections rather than as prints, and even when they're printed the overwhelming majority are 4x6in minilab prints. PS 35mm and smaller or low end digicams most often have small aperture wide angle lenses so have greater inherent DOF to begin with. Medium and large format photographs almost always end up as prints for sale or for serious scrutiny by serious amateurs. It's no wonder that their DOF of is more critically judged. Regards, Anthony Farr - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
I guess what I'm thinking is, there's a difference between interpolation and a raw pixel. Interpolation is still a *guesstimate* and in the end does not really fill in *what* was missing. It fills in *something*. I don't think their can be any substitute for raw pixel count. Tom C. - Original Message - From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. Patrick White wrote: aimcompute writes: I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really been about quality. I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up with more raw material than you start with. The Nikon D1x uses interpolation in one direction (the width I believe) without any obvious problems. Isaac - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Actually, DOF has to do with nothing but magnification and the diameter of the aperture. Everything else is just another way of expressing those values. --graywolf - Original Message - From: dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. A scroll of mail from Francis Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:15:08 +0100 Read it? y I am curious about your comment about increased DOF with a smaller format. I was always under the impression that we get more DOF with 35mm over MF because the typical print magnification is less. Am I missing something more subtle here? DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-stop. Print magnification has nothing whatsoever to do with it. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: DOF and format size (was: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.)
- Original Message - From: dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] (snip) DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-stop. Print magnification has nothing whatsoever to do with it. - But print magnification has EVERYTHING to do with it. Until now I have kept my silence WRT this subject but no more. Too frequently anecdote and intuition have been been offered as informed knowledge. The facts follow. The DOF concept is based on the circles of confusion (COC) of the out of focus part of a photograph being either smaller than the unaided eye can appreciate, in which case the subject matter will seem acceptably focussed, or large enough for the same unaided eye to see the unsharpness of it. Quite simply, when the enlargement factor of a print is increased then the COC of nearly focussed areas will become larger and will cross the threshold between small enough to pass as sharp and large enough to be deemed unsharp. Photographers who either criticise or praise different sized formats for their DOF characteristics are correct only as long as the developed film or a contact print (or 1:1 enlargement) is being viewed unmagnified. Otherwise, a 22mm standard lens on a 110 camera will produce the same DOF as will a 43mm lens on 35mm (the statistical standard lens), or a 75mm lens on 6x4.5cm, a 90mm lens on 6x7cm, or even a 320mm lens on 8x10in, as long as the shooting aperture is always the same and the prints being judged are always the same size, and regardless of differences in DOF of the unenlarged negatives. WARNING: ANECDOTE AND SUPPOSITION FOLLOWS. Digital cameras seem to bend theses rules somewhat because the imaging chips have optical characteristics of their own to confuse the equation. CCD pixels prefer to look straight ahead unlike film which easily accepts exposing light from oblique angles (the apparently fatal flaw of the full frame Philips chip proposed for the MZ-D). That narrow acceptance angle may lend CCD produced images more apparent DOF (my guess anyway) the same way as the CCD array in a scanner has great DOF even without a lens. That's my ~theory~ anyway for the long DOF that some list members have reported from their digicams. BTW the DOF scale on lenses for 35mm cameras are more suited to viewing as projections rather than as prints, and even when they're printed the overwhelming majority are 4x6in minilab prints. PS 35mm and smaller or low end digicams most often have small aperture wide angle lenses so have greater inherent DOF to begin with. Medium and large format photographs almost always end up as prints for sale or for serious scrutiny by serious amateurs. It's no wonder that their DOF of is more critically judged. Regards, Anthony Farr - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. On 22 Oct 2001, at 14:07, aimcompute wrote: When we get down to it, it's not the size of the 35mm frame that renders a high quality photo or not (stating the obvious... sorry). It's the overall quality of the lenses and recording device, regardless of the dimensions of the frame size. Certainly a CCD of higher density is overall more important than it's dimensions. Rob wrote: Certainly is not, what do you reckon the quality of a 6MP CCD of 2mm x 3mm dimension would be? Tom Says: Well I'm sure you're correct and I was technically vague. I was speaking more to the desire that a CCD be particular x dimension by y dimenson, than I was small vs. large. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Hey... now that's the spirit! Tom C. - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 7:17 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. Bah, I'll never buy it until they make a full size 6x7 sensor on a body that takes my 67 lenses! ;) If the price were right, I'd consider a smaller-than-35mm sensor body that took my existing lenses, provided that it was as backwards-compatible as the MZ-S -- I want to be able to use my 67 lenses on it with an adaptor. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark wrote: This sudden change, whatever the rationale, is inexcusable. Yes, digital technology is advancing at a tremendous rate and the market for it isn't stable. But in October of 2001 they can't really expect me to believe that this is NEWS to them and that it's taken them by surprise. While I sympathize with you, Mark, I don't think I agree...if you're getting a complex cutting-edge electronic product from a subcontractor, and the subcontractor runs into unexpected problems and delays, what are you going to do? You can't very well will a product to market that you can't bring to market. Ah, you're assuming it's delays in availability of parts from the subcontractors driving this. I was assuming that they were telling the truth and had *decided* to halt or push back development of the digital SLR because the market's moving too fast. I believe you may be right. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Dear Mike, On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:37:11PM -0500, Mike Johnston wrote: P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a full-size sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses can be significantly smaller and lighter and significantly faster, and depth of field can be greater for a given angle of view. All these are true advantages. I suspect that 24 x 36mm sensors will prove to be an evolutionary dead end in the long run. Right now we think we want this because it conforms to the old standards. But once digital shakes free of 35mm conventions, the smaller CCD size will seem like just one more natural advantage of digital. I am curious about your comment about increased DOF with a smaller format. I was always under the impression that we get more DOF with 35mm over MF because the typical print magnification is less. Am I missing something more subtle here? Yours sincrely, Frank. -- Francis Tang, Postgraduate Research Student. LFCS, Div. of Informatics, Uni. of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: +44 131 6505185. Fax: +44 131 6677209. Office: 1603, JCMB, KB. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/fhlt/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
MF print magnification is less than 35mm, so that cant be the reason... -Original Message- From: Francis Tang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 23 October 2001 14:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. Dear Mike, On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:37:11PM -0500, Mike Johnston wrote: P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a full-size sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses can be significantly smaller and lighter and significantly faster, and depth of field can be greater for a given angle of view. All these are true advantages. I suspect that 24 x 36mm sensors will prove to be an evolutionary dead end in the long run. Right now we think we want this because it conforms to the old standards. But once digital shakes free of 35mm conventions, the smaller CCD size will seem like just one more natural advantage of digital. I am curious about your comment about increased DOF with a smaller format. I was always under the impression that we get more DOF with 35mm over MF because the typical print magnification is less. Am I missing something more subtle here? Yours sincrely, Frank. -- Francis Tang, Postgraduate Research Student. LFCS, Div. of Informatics, Uni. of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: +44 131 6505185. Fax: +44 131 6677209. Office: 1603, JCMB, KB. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/fhlt/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Correct. The chip technology itself is always changing which generally requires totally different technology around it to make it work. For sharpness CCD chips are going from front illumination to rear illumination because it eliminates the illumination hardware in front of the CCD pixel which the light has to filter through. However rear illumination has its own physical difficulties because to reach the same light recording levels the separation of the light has to be as little as possible, meaning the CCD array needs to be only around 10 microns thick. The only upgrades I've seen for CCD hardware is in the design and manufacture of a new version of the same chip array with some new performance like increased sensitivity to various light levels and reduced noise. Like going from the regular to the Kodak E CCD chips. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. Frits wrote: If the one that we already saw is upgradable, would it be possible it would hit the market with a smaller CCD to begin with? That might be an interesting upgrade path. The possibility of an earlier camera being upgradeable is very close to zero. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Does anyone think that someone from Pentax reads this list!!!??? Can I place my order right now? Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Interesting I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really been about quality. I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up with more raw material than you start with. Tom C. - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:11 AM Subject: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT. From Amateur Photographer (27 Oct): 'Pentax set to scrap plan for flagship digital launch' 'Pentax is likely to shelve plans to launch a 6 MP flagship digital camera in favour of a 'lower-end' SLR to be unveiled next year. 'Pentax UK's John Dickins admitted that Pentax wants to move away from the 'cost no object, best quality possible' area of the digital arena because, he said, 'things change so fast we have to change direction'. He claimed: 'What seems to be happening is that cameras like the Canon D30 and the Fuji S1 Pro are creating much more consumer interest than cameras at the higher end of the scale'. The Fuji S1 Pro uses the company's Super CCD technology to increase the image file size to 6.1 megapixels. The camera itself uses a 3.34 million pixel CCD. 'Commenting on the expected launch of a new 'consumer' SLR next year, he added: 'I don't know the exact details but what we are talking about is something interesting like the Fuji S1 Pro or the Canon D30. 'The announcement comes a week after [Amateur Photographer] reported on delays in launching the high-end camera, codenamed MR-52, which had been due to appear in UK stores last month. 'When it was first announced at last year's Photokina trade show in Germany the camera was billed by Pentax as a 'high-spec' model based on the company's 35mm SLRs. It was to be compatible with Pentax K-mount lenses and to use a digital chip jointly developed with Philips. 'However, Dickins denied that Pentax was lowering it's target market. 'We are just broadening it,' he insisted. 'Though he did not know when the camera will be out in the UK, Dickins confirmed it would probably make it's first appearance at next year's PMA show in the US. 'Pentax also recently ditched plans to launch a 3.43 MP SLR to be called the El-3000, a camera it developed with Hewlett-Packard. Instead, as [Amateur Photographer] reported last week, Pentax wanted to concentrate on launching the Optio 330 digital compact because it felt that the 'ease of use' and small size of the Optio would more fully meet customer needs.' ** Amateur Photographer is a really great magazine and I subscribe and I love it to bits, so please don't sue me for reproducing that report!!! Honest!!! - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Cotty wrote: News in AP regarding the Pentax Digital. Scrapping launch of Pentax 6 MP digital slr in favour of lower-end digital k mount slr more along the lines of the Canon D30 and Fuji S1. First appearance will probably be next year's PMA. And then in another post: Does anyone think that someone from Pentax reads this list!!!??? Of course. They're smart folks. I have reason to believe that Pentax is not SCRAPPING the 6-mp 1:1 size SLR, but rather delaying it. If I'm right in my supposition that PART of the reason for developing the MZ-S was to have a new modern body on which to base digital SLRs, then the RD expended certainly represents a major investment even for a company the size of Pentax, and a higher risk than the typical introduction of a new 35mm SLR (even a high-end one). Pentax is certainly researching the market and attempting to adapt to the market as carefully and intelligently as possible. What Pentax is telling us with this latest news is that it's seeing that ultimate digital SLRs in a fast-changing market are not repaying development costs, and most consumer have a greater interest in more affordable equipment. Also, I suspect there are frustrating delays in the perfecting of the 6-mp chip. Pentax has both a well-designed SLR camera base AND a good 3- and 4-mp sensors NOW (and may 5 mp, who knows?), so there's really no reason for it to sit on its hands and wait, wait, wait, for the vaporware 6-mp version to be ready. It can build and offer for sale a very good medium-level digital system SLR soon, and so it's going to do so. All this smacks of great good sense to me. What they're going to do is release a smaller-CCD-size, LOWER COST, 3-5-mp digital SLR ASAP, and put off MR-42 until both the market and the technology are more stable. I like the idea. What it means for the Pentax loyalist is that we will have a potentially MUCH more affordable digital SLR to cut our teeth on, technology we buy now will be more reliable and more tried-and-true, and we will still be able to use all our existing lenses and system accessories. All of this represents an educated guess on my part. --Mike J. P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a full-size sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses can be significantly smaller and lighter and significantly faster, and depth of field can be greater for a given angle of view. All these are true advantages. I suspect that 24 x 36mm sensors will prove to be an evolutionary dead end in the long run. Right now we think we want this because it conforms to the old standards. But once digital shakes free of 35mm conventions, the smaller CCD size will seem like just one more natural advantage of digital. P.P.S. I've requested a sample Optio 330/430 from Pentax for a review (through a friend who works for Pentax), and if I end up getting one I'll post ongoing updates of my findings here in advance of the published review. P.P.S. In issue #3 of The 37th Frame newsletter (www.37thframe.com), I'm going to be presenting a review of the Canon S800 photo printer (an expanded review will also appear on photo.net), and if I can afford to I'll be including an original S800 inkjet print in the newsletter so subscribers can see with their own eyes. If I can get the necessary permissions, I hope to make the sample a Pentax Optio 330 or 430 picture, and thus kill two birds, you might say, with one stone, since the sample picture could then act to augment a future Optio review. We'll see if this all works out. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Mike wrote... snip P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a full-size sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses can be significantly smaller and lighter and significantly faster, and depth of field can be greater for a given angle of view. All these are true advantages. I suspect that 24 x 36mm sensors will prove to be an evolutionary dead end in the long run. Right now we think we want this because it conforms to the old standards. But once digital shakes free of 35mm conventions, the smaller CCD size will seem like just one more natural advantage of digital. snip That was, in part, where I was coming from with my earlier ignorant post. The only real reason for wanting a full frame CCD is so that the resulting image size matches 1-to-1 with film (and as explained to me, that lenses render the image the same as film with the same focal length lenses). When we get down to it, it's not the size of the 35mm frame that renders a high quality photo or not (stating the obvious... sorry). It's the overall quality of the lenses and recording device, regardless of the dimensions of the frame size. Certainly a CCD of higher density is overall more important than it's dimensions. I can certainly understand the desirability of a digital body that performs like it's 35mm counterpart using the same lenses. In the end though, the resulting image matters more than anything else. When I pick up a digital camera, I'm not paying attention to focal length really. I'm paying attention to what I see in the viewfinder. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Your order for the ditched 6MB or for the new one with the smaller CCD? I am not sure how to take this news. Perhaps it means the camera is more affordable? If the one that we already saw is upgradable, would it be possible it would hit the market with a smaller CCD to begin with? That might be an interesting upgrade path. However, before someone wants to buy the camera with the smaller CCD with this upgrade path in mind, he needs to be sure Pentax will have the upgrade available sometime in the future, and not ditch it. Is this all the information we have? No one with inside knowledge from Pentax? Where is Pål now we need him? Frits Wüthrich Cotty wonders: Does anyone think that someone from Pentax reads this list!!!??? Can I place my order right now? Cotty - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Mark Roberts fumed: I certainly hope you're correct. Right now I'm still *furious* at this latest development. I spent several thousand dollars on equipment this year, largely based on the confidence that the digital SLR was coming and what I bought would be compatible. Gambling on just when the cutting edge of the technology curve will produce real products in the marketplace is a risky business. And it's not just Pentax that have slipped the product schedule (which was never an official Pentax schedule, anyway); Contax are said to be having similar problems with their full-frame sensor. We, the Pentax users, feel this pain more deeply than Canon/Nikon users because we don't have any alternative K-mount digital body to tide us over until the eventual high-end bodies become reality. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd, Palo Alto,CA 94306 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Patrick White wrote: aimcompute writes: I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really been about quality. I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up with more raw material than you start with. The Nikon D1x uses interpolation in one direction (the width I believe) without any obvious problems. Isaac - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
