It's funny, that's a question that I have pondered as well.
Not only have camera manufacturers nearly abandoned fisheye lenses, they
have abandoned bellows units, slide duplicators, bulk film backs for
motor-driven cameras (amazing since today's cameras are even faster),
interchangeable finders
--- Forwarded message follows ---
From: "Keith Davison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:47:21 -
Subject: Re: EOS Infrared CCD vs CMOS
Send reply to:
Hello,
Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 5:41:38 AM, Jay wrote:
> BTW, I didn't know this until I bought an expensive 77mm 87 infrared filter
> and found my 10D photos looking like dull low contrast non-infrared B&W
> photos. I was disappointed because I had gotten such good results with a
> smaller 87
On 2 Nov 2004 at 22:35, Ken Lin wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's a bit more subtle/complex than thiseven within
> > EOS DSLR's there are differences: EOS-1D (I&II) is CCD, 1Ds (I&II)
> > is CMOS.
>
> Not often one gets a chance to correct WJM., so I am taking
> advantage quickly :-)
>
> I do
> Actually, it's a bit more subtle/complex than thiseven within EOS
> DSLR's there are differences: EOS-1D (I&II) is CCD, 1Ds (I&II) is
> CMOS.
Not often one gets a chance to correct WJM., so I am taking advantage
quickly :-)
I do believe 1D and 1Ds are CCD while 1D Mk II and 1Ds Mk II a
On 1 Nov 2004 at 23:41, Jay D. Washington wrote:
> Several days ago I read a thread about Infrared shooting with Canon
> Digital SLRs, but I did not have time to respond. Anyway, there is a
> reason that shooting with P&S digitals with infrared filters look
> different than shooting with Canon DS
