I choose the last one...
SB> There are one or two that may be considered "adult" but for the most
SB> part they're wholesome and family oriented. Fell free to pass 'em along
SB> ...
SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/xmas/1.html
Though the '...g chimney' was not bad either...
Peace!
B
Hi!
AC> Boris,
AC> You guys certainly did tell me. Now I'm hooked and can't help myself.
AC> Thanks for the little tip on the soft lens. No wonder when I was trying
AC> it out, I can't get a nice clear focus on the split screen
AC> Cheers
AC> Andy
Glad you did not look at the distance scale o
Data that is collected over a span of ten years is meaningless in
global terms. Any real scientist will verify that.
On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 06:17 PM, Keith Whaley wrote:
You apparently didn't pick up on what I was saying.
Ignore everything else for a moment.
The weather bureau(s) have b
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> I dunno about the rest of you, but I note a considerable
> loss of detail in
> the altered image.
Well, that's sort of what it does. Noise obscures what's there, NI
sort of smooth things out.
I tested it for a littl
>
> the Pentax blurb on a medium format digital camera said that most of their
> sales were to amateurs.
The blurb also said that the typical customer in Japan was very different
from the typical customer in the USA. One amateur, the other professional.
> - Original Message -
> From:
>
> Eh? Do you not realise that a 35mm format Pentax DSLR WOULD work with
> his existing lenses? With the added flexibility of also working with
> 35mm lenses?
You appear to have a different definition of 'work' than mine. If I
put an autofocus lens on an autofocus body I expect to get autofoc
How many *ist D owners would pledge to buy a brand new DA lens every year so
Pentax can stay in business? That way Pentax would know they made the right
decision. I don't own a *ist D so count me out.
Jim A.
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri,
May I suggest a wonderful book, "Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women" by Ricky
Jay. Them pigs can do a lot of amazing things!
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> Yeah if Pentax could do full frame 645 at same price
> as C & N do full frame 35mm , pentax would make some
> money? Well that is brilliant, If p
Well, then, color me crazy ...
One continually reads how the LCD and histogram of the digital camera
allows the photographer to immediately see the results of the exposure,
and, if need be, make another, and that's a valid point ... as far as it
goes. But subjects move, light changes, and a good
This is the one I saw
http://ecoli.idv.tw/photo/es2.jpg
Andy
-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Question on Spotmatics
No, the first camera WAS an "electro-spotmatic".
That was t
we already know about you.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:24 PM
Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year
> Not me, if I had to go with a 24x36 sensor, I would
> much rather have a 35mm DS
Not me, if I had to go with a 24x36 sensor, I would
much rather have a 35mm DSLR system as the lenses would
be smaller, lighter, cheaper, wider, blah, blah, blah
645 DSLR would only make sense to me if the sensor was much
bigger than 24x36, preferably 6x4.5
JCO
because he wants a digital 645 to go with the 645 he already has. that is
all that is necessary.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:11 PM
Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year
> why would h
the Pentax blurb on a medium format digital camera said that most of their
sales were to amateurs.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: New Pentax DSLR next year
> How about be
why would he if it only had a 24x36 sensor?
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
Fro
a person willing to buy a digital 645 body is willing to spend a lot more
than on a digital 35mm body.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year
> No you
Kudos Scott, for a very logical and well thought out think-out (even if the
middle bit was in a foreign language :)) I didn't think it would be that
complicated, but coming from a very non-scientific background, you're much
more likely to be on the right track. What I pictured in my mind was
basica
i have the sound track from the movie on LP. i know nothing about the movie.
i just know that the sound track has some nice music on it.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:02 PM
Subject: Re:
I think I sold mine for $955. Do I miss it ?
Definitely. It is the sharpest Pentax lens I have
ever owned.
I figured at the time that with the proceeds I could
get a new Canon EF 135 f/2L lens which was slightly
sharper and still have some money left for a used
EOS body. I was also hoping that som
Hi !
I put some lenses on eBay and they are ending in a
couple of days. Happy bidding !
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=cyber_studio
--
Bo-Ming Tong
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an amateur/ connoisseur, you only have to please yourself,
as a working
> pro, you have to please your client. Pleasing a client happens
on many
> different levels, and surprisingly enough, ultimate picture
quality as we
> see it here is quite often not
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 17:10, Ryan Lee wrote:
> Just an idea since there's at least one thread discussing lenses and
> multiplication factor. How feasible would it be theoretically for
> manufacturers to come up with a teleconverter like accessory to fit normal
> lens projections to APS size sensors
I don't know whether it's loss of detail or the fact that the noise hints at
detail that really isn't there. Also that's a VERY small crop of a large
jpg from the istD.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 20
Oh? You don't ride a bicycle? Sorry.
--
frank theriault wrote:
Hey, Tom,
Don't drag me into this. I may have started it, but since that first
post, I've stayed out of it, like the good boy that I am!
By the way, just because I'm right and everyone else is wrong, that
doesn't make me a fan
> IMO, the home edition is easily worth $30.00. I've only been using it a
> couple of days, so I'm still learning. Doing one image at a time, it's no
> speed demon, but I'm not terribly interested in speed any way and the
> results look fine to me. I've uploaded a 100% istD crop of one of the
ph
Doug,
Version 3.0 runs faster. Only a minute or two on my istD images. My
machine though is a P4 2.6Ghz
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Neat Image
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17
Butch Black wrote:
> Gentlemen, (and I use the term loosely)
> A 645 based camera with a 24x36mm sensor would have approximately
> a 1.5 magnification factor over a 645 negative, not a 35mm negative.
> So the 400mm 645 lens would look like a 600mm lens on a 645 negative.
... my poin
Like looking through the "wrong" end of a telescope?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Sensor size and convertor idea
> Just an idea since there's at least one thread discussing
IMO, the home edition is easily worth $30.00. I've only been using it a
couple of days, so I'm still learning. Doing one image at a time, it's no
speed demon, but I'm not terribly interested in speed any way and the
results look fine to me. I've uploaded a 100% istD crop of one of the photos
from
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> And what's to prevent the photographer using film to make
> several exposures of the same subject, bracketing the
> exposure, shooting from different points of view, even using
> different cameras with different films.
Whoo! Another advantage to the digital user, he won
And what's to prevent the photographer using film to make several exposures of
the same subject, bracketing the exposure, shooting from different points of
view, even using different cameras with different films.
Malcolm Smith wrote:
> Hmm! I think I do; with digital you can review immediately wh
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Bill D. Casselberry wrote:
> >
> > 1) The sensor *crops* the image circle
> > 2) It writes the image data to the card
> > 3) The result appears to have been taken w/ a longer lens
> >
> > ... what's so hard about that
> Nothing, but JCO is ri
Interesting, it doesn't say anywhere what the size of the sensor is for
this 645 back.
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 00:38, Cotty wrote:
> On 12/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >Why would anybody buy a medium format DSLR and put
> >up with the extra weight and cost of the lenses and
> >body if it
frank theriault wrote:
> As to whether digital and film should be judged separately, I
> really don't care.
Hmm! I think I do; with digital you can review immediately what you have
taken - if you don't like it on some occasions the moment may not have
passed and you can take the shot again. With
Hey, Tom,
Don't drag me into this. I may have started it, but since that first post,
I've stayed out of it, like the good boy that I am!
By the way, just because I'm right and everyone else is wrong, that doesn't
make me a fanatic.
I just makes me right. And, I'm right, because I have the
Bingo!
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
Perhaps what is not being thought about is that MF guys are already
taking a hit on the long end. The 645/67 400mm is really much closer
to a 200mm in 35mm format. So they could do the mental jump and say
that now their lenses match the 35mm because of the same sensor size.
JCO is correct that t
It was very positive. The reviewer did, however, identify the 50 f1.4 as
an FAJ lens.
Joe
The only photo club that I've belonged to (http://www.groupf56.com)
didn't allow conversations about gear or equipment at the official
meetings (people did talk about it afterwords). Photographs were
evaluated on the final results, not what means were used to take them.
It is an interesting club.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Bill Owens wrote:
> Bill, I think what J.C. is saying is that a 400mm lens designed for a 645
> and a 400mm lens designed for a 35mm would both perform exactly the same on
> a 24x36 sensor. If that's what he's saying, he's correct.
The FOV is identical. Nothing else is neces
A Pulitzer Prize photo from the mid 1960's was taken with a Spotmatic.
Can't remember what year, or by whom. I'm sure a quick Google would answer
that one.
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Doug Br
On 12/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Why would anybody buy a medium format DSLR and put
>up with the extra weight and cost of the lenses and
>body if it didnt offer MORE resolution than the
>best 35mm full frame DSLRs? In order to acheive that
>they are going to need a sensor substantially
Then that person is obliged to pay the sales tax.
- Original Message -
From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Monterey CA Pentax dealers?
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, graywolf wrote:
>
> > > But how do you know
That's okay, Bob,
They have drugs for that now. It's nothing to be ashamed of, btw, it's not
an unusual occurance as we men grow older, so I've heard.
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Bob Blakel
On 12 Dec 2003 at 22:19, Cotty wrote:
> Because the system around the 645 already exists, is known and used by
> professionals already. real professionals don't read geeky mags full of
> tests and shit like that - they use what they know and feel comfortable
> with. If their reps tell them that a
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> dumb idea. You have to crawl before you can run.
> No point in 645 DSLR unless it were full frame and it
> would be much more likely that they would develop and
> sell full frame 35mm DSLR, before tackling FF 645DSLR.
A 645-chassis D-SLR with a 35mm se
On 12 Dec 2003 at 14:43, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> Possibly with built-in Image Stabilization technology similar to Minolta's
> AS. Goodbye heavy, large and expensive IS lenses :-)
> There is a lot more to come in digital next year too:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121201minoltadslr.asp
Yowza! Enough to make a peacenik like me join the Air Force! (If only it
were 35 years ago, that is).
My first year at university, 1976, beer at the university pub was 75 cents
each. I could get drunk on $10 (including tips) - but that was before I
developed my current alcohol threshold...
To be technically correct, nobody has a Pentax Electro Spotmatic II, they have Asahi
Pentax ESII's or Honeywell ESII's. The Electro Spotmatic was a trial version of the
Pentax ES sold for the first year in Japan. It is wired instead of using circuit
boards (but I wouldn't take mine apart to ch
Dear me, Wendy,
Now you've gone and done it, haven't you?
You've already pissed off your fellow Brits by abandoning them and heading
off to the New World in search of fame and fortune. Now you've pissed off
those of us in the Colonies by refusing to be identified as one of us.
Whatever will y
You apparently didn't pick up on what I was saying.
Ignore everything else for a moment.
The weather bureau(s) have been tracking incoming along the southeastern
coast of the U.S. and they have DOCUMENTED increasingly larger and more
powerful storms in the past decade or less. Annually!
Yes, it's s
Not as hazy as my 90 day TDY with the USAF in England in 1967. Drinks at
the NCO club were $0.10 during happy hour(s) and $0.20 during other times.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:04 PM
Subje
Bill Owens wrote:
> What it all comes down to is that a 400mm lens is a 400mm lens,
> whether on a 16mm Minox or an 8x10 field camera. The only
> difference is the amount of the image circle visible to the
> light sensitive media.
This is apparently a difficult concept for some to a
not true is the problem, whether you crop a big image circle of
a 645 400mm lens or use the whole image circle
of a 35mm 400mm lens, the recorded result is the same,
no difference, not longer appearance , same appearance because
the focal length is the SAME and the sensor size is the SAME.
-
Bill, I think what J.C. is saying is that a 400mm lens designed for a 645
and a 400mm lens designed for a 35mm would both perform exactly the same on
a 24x36 sensor. If that's what he's saying, he's correct.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <
Only in Cairo (pronounced Kay-roh), Illinois...
-frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh, I've just
had a sick thought - you North Americans don't pronounce it
On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 06:05 PM, Bill D. Casselberry wrote:
1) The sensor *crops* the image circle
2) It writes the image data to the card
3) The result appears to have been taken w/ a longer lens
... what's so hard about that
Nothing, but JCO is right in that t
Oh, there's noise there, and a fair amount of it. You just can't see it in
these small images. Still, it's less objectionable, IMHO, than film grain
at the same ISO. Also, Neat Image allows batch processing to reduce the
effect of noise/film grain.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "fra
If I had a digital camera, I could take pictures this morning, and post them
this afternoon. But, I don't, and I can't.
Interesting pics, btw, Anders. Thanks.
cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheime
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> WRONG
> Im tired of explaining it to you.
You sure are pig-headed!
1) The sensor *crops* the image circle
2) It writes the image data to the card
3) The result appears to have been taken w/ a longer lens
... what's so hard a
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: interesting camera club debate
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:52:34 -0500
As to whether digital and film should be judged separately, I really don't
care. It's up to the club or those holding the
Hi, Mike,
Could be UHF. I can't remember; I was a university student in the '70's,
so much of that time period is a bit, er, hazy...
I'm not sufficiently curious that I even care to google it. UHF, FM,
whatever...
BTW, watch what you say about Steely Dan. One of my all time favourite
gr
What it all comes down to is that a 400mm lens is a 400mm lens, whether on a
16mm Minox or an 8x10 field camera. The only difference is the amount of
the image circle visible to the light sensitive media.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL
Beautiful shots, Bill. And ISO 3200? Amazing; no grain!
cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Su
På 12. des. 2003 kl. 23.22 skrev Bill D. Casselberry:
Dag T wrote:
skrev Bill D. Casselberry:
Could Man actually produce enough "nasty" greenhouse gases
to stem the impending freeze? If such were the dilemma, we
might soon realize how puny our efforts really are in the
gr
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> The FOV would be the same for both 400mm lenses
> when used on the same 24x36 sensor. You seem to
> think that a 645 400mm lens is a different magnification
> from a 35mm 400mm lens when both are used on the
> same small 24x36 sensor. The magnification and FOV from
> BO
I dont get it, are you still saying there would be
some visible perceived or actual difference? There wouldnt
be either.
JCO
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
---
As to whether digital and film should be judged separately, I really don't
care. It's up to the club or those holding the competition to make the
rules, and those who wish to enter either abide by those rules, or not.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of art competitions anyway, whether
th
WRONG
Im tired of explaining it to you. When using a small sensor,
24x36mm or less, there will be ZERO difference in field of view,
depth of field, apparent magnification etc. etc. between a 645 400mm lens
and a 35mm 400mm lens.
PERIOD. This isnt theory, this is real.
jco
--
It makes less sense than an APS sensor in a 35mm body
because at least the 35mm body is the smallest slr system
available. Putting a smaller than 35mm sensor in a 645/67
system body is definately absurd
J.C. O'Con
On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 04:52 PM, William Robb wrote:
What I am not in favour of is the theory that is prevelant in your
country
that what is needed is more fossil fuel, rather than attempts at
conservation.
We are in favor of both. We're in favor of finding more fossil fuels on
our ow
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> Your talking something different here.
> The inital suggestion was that a 400mm 645
> lens would be much different than a 400mm 35mm format
> lens ON THE SAME 24x36 DSLR CAMERA! Not true.
ah - here's the crux of misunderstanding :^)
The assumption wa
That's what I've been saying!!!
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year
> The FOV would be the same for both 400mm lenses
> when used on the same 24x36 s
In Michigan our weather has been quite mild in recent years. But all
this is irrelevant. The kind of changes we're talking about , whether
their due to man's interaction with the environment or the evolving
planet, happen over thousands of years, not from one year to the next.
On Friday, Decemb
On 12/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
> If we (in some future day) realize that a cooling trend
> *is* in the cards for our little island in space and the
> cold of an Ice Age was looming in, say, the next century ...
>
> Could Man actually produce enough "nasty" greenh
No, the first camera WAS an "electro-spotmatic".
That was the model name and was ingraved in the body.
The later cameras were ES and ESII they are
different cameras from the original and are not
"electro-spotmatics". They are what they are:
the ES and ESII.
JCO
The FOV would be the same for both 400mm lenses
when used on the same 24x36 sensor. You seem to
think that a 645 400mm lens is a different magnification
from a 35mm 400mm lens when both are used on the
same small 24x36 sensor. The magnification and FOV from
BOTH 400mm lenses would be the same when
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> No you dont get it. It is absolutely pointless and stupid
> to put a smallish sensor (24x36) in a 645 camera that could fit
> in a 35mm format body. That would be the dumbest creation of all time.
!8^D HAR! We *do* agree on that!
Bill
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> There IS NOT an "apparent" optical difference if both
> lenses are the same 400mm FL!
Consumers don't care about physics! The in-camera crop
of the smaller than nominal fullframe sensor yields on
the memory card the same effect as cranking up t
If your government does let you have your personal reactor, can I buy your
spent fuel rods? Y'see I have this little plutonium collection here...
Regards,
Bob...
"History is not a school-mistress. She does
not teach. She is a prison matron who
punishe
No such Camera? Well, maybe. The first one marketed in the USA was
body-badged ES and the second model was badged ESII. In both cases the ES
stood for Electro-Spotmatic.
Lewis
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Question
Please explain how a new DSLR using the same 24X36 sensor
used in the full frame DSLR that used 645 lenses could be
"smaller"?? The lenses and the lens mounts for 645 are LARGER.
JCO
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROT
Dag T wrote:
> skrev Bill D. Casselberry:
> > Could Man actually produce enough "nasty" greenhouse gases
> > to stem the impending freeze? If such were the dilemma, we
> > might soon realize how puny our efforts really are in the
> > grand scheme of things.
> Maybe, bu
On 12/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Perhaps cotty was saying that it will be a 24x36 sensor on a 645-style
>chassis?
Because the system around the 645 already exists, is known and used by
professionals already. real professionals don't read geeky mags full of
tests and shit like that - the
omnipotent
Regards,
Bob...
"History is not a school-mistress. She does
not teach. She is a prison matron who
punishes for unlearned lessons."
-- Vasily Klyutchevsky, Russian historian
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL
On 12/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Perhaps cotty was saying that it will be a 24x36 sensor on a 645-style
>chassis?
I don't think it matters a jot what the size of the sensor is, as long as
it comes in a MF body, takes MF lenses (new wides if necessary) and gives
at least 15 Megapixels. t
Eh? Do you not realise that a 35mm format Pentax DSLR WOULD work with
his existing lenses? With the added flexibility of also working with
35mm lenses?
IF the sensor is 35mm full frame or less then you may as well put it in
a 35mm body an d mount your 645/67 lenses on that. A digital back would
35mm film adapter for medium format bodies only
makes sense if it is a panarama format like 24mmm x60mm
where you use more than the normal 24mmX36mm of film.
Otherwise you are much better off just using a 35mm
camera, lighter, smaller, better in nearly every respect
---
On 12/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>dumb idea. You have to crawl before you can run.
>No point in 645 DSLR unless it were full frame and it
>would be much more likely that they would develop and
>sell full frame 35mm DSLR, before tackling FF 645DSLR.
Really? I would have thought it would b
The FOV would be the equivalent of a 600mm on a 24x36 sensor.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year
> Your talking something different here.
> The init
Christian wrote:
> But again you lose out on the wide end.
By optics/physics this is just the way it is when using
a smaller sensor than a lens is designed for - it's just
a boon for telephoto and hoovers for wide angle, can't be
helped other than special design
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> huh? a 400mm lens designed for 645 isnt going
> to give any bigger image magnification than a
> 400mm designed for 24x36 but it would be larger
> and heavier and costlier. No way Jose!
yeah, sure - by straight optical physics
but the actual effect is a
I vigorously endorse all efforts to reduce pollution, However, CO2 is not a
pollutant. Without it, every green thing on the planet will whither and die.
Yup, it's possible to have too much. Hell, even too much vitamin A will kill
ya! :-}
Regards,
Bob...
http://mpex.com/Dec03MedSpecials.htm
CRB
The ES II uses 76 series silver oxide batteries (Everready EPX76, Duracell
MS76, Maxell SR44, Panasonic G13, Rayovac RS76, Varta V76PX, and others
designated as S76 or just 76). 76 series batteries remain available.
The ES uses a 544 silver oxide battery (and equivalent under other
designations
På 11. des. 2003 kl. 20.50 skrev Bob Blakely:
Water vapor is a much more efficient "greenhouse gas" and is two
orders of
magnitude more plentiful than CO2 in our atmosphere. (Perhaps we should
rethink those fuel cell cars!)
I´m aware of this.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the
Unfortunately the unnamed Pentax source quoted in the referenced article
strongly suggested that Pentax would be releasing smaller, lighter DSLRs.
If they do release a body with in-camera image stabilisation, though,
that would presumably need a rigid frame.
> Have you played with the istD? It'
>for most professional use (as opposed to pure specsmanship)
>a smaller sensor delivers sufficient resolution.
and so would a 24x36 DSLR, which would be lighter
cheaper, smaller, more lens selection etc etc etc
JCO
all they would need to do is redesign new
24x36 format lenses that covered the digital
sensor better. No need to carry around huge
and heavy 645 lenses for the 24x36 DSLR.
JCO
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
