On Apr 15, 2014, at 3:19 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
> Am 13.04.14 01:18, schrieb Paul Stenquist:
>> 51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it’s a bit smaller than
>> a Nikon D4.
>
> Just received Ricoh Germany's newsletter with all the glorious details of the
> new gem - pict
Am 13.04.14 01:18, schrieb Paul Stenquist:
51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it’s a bit smaller than a
Nikon D4.
Just received Ricoh Germany's newsletter with all the glorious details
of the new gem - pictures, specs and all.
I hate them!
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher -
Quoting Steve Cottrell :
On 13/4/14, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed:
I expect you're going to have to buy a new hat before that happens.
Funny you should mention that
Something along these lines, presumably?
http://www.instructables.com/id/edible-party-hat/
--
Cheers
B
On 14/4/14, Brian Walters, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I thought you were adopting the Ricoh exclusion clause (ie. any full
>frame camera will be a Ricoh, not a true Pentax, therefore the
>original premise is null and void).
As long as it says Pentax on the front, it's a Pentax in my book.
On 13/4/14, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I expect you're going to have to buy a new hat before that happens.
Funny you should mention that
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web Video Production
--
_
more often with the passing of every year.
>
> Paul
>
>
>> Kenneth Waller
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts"
>>
>> Subject: Re: 645Z specs
>>
>>
>>&g
--- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts"
> Subject: Re: 645Z specs
>
>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
>
> . To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
> . To have access to smaller/lighter (and M
;35mm' lenses that
would be hard/impossible to replicate in medium format if I went to medium
format.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: 645Z specs
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Why would a
On 4/13/2014 2:06 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 13/4/14, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
? To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
? To have access to smaller/lighter (and Med format) lenses
? To be able to use lenses for the full-frame on both full-frame and
APS-C bodies
? To av
No, but I could use my FA lenses until Ricoh came out with "full frame"
lenses.
On 4/13/2014 8:51 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Can't use all the Pentax APS-C lenses on 24 x 36 anyway. Pentax
doesn't have a state of the art lens line for "full frame."
Paul via phone
On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:14 AM,
Quoting Steve Cottrell :
On 13/4/14, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
? To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
? To have access to smaller/lighter (and Med format) lenses
? To be able to use lenses for the full-frame on both full-frame and
APS-C bodies
? To avoid needing to bu
Talking about price, I didn't see mentioned 645Z's: around $8500.
Alex
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Brian Walters wrote:
> Quoting Paul Stenquist :
>
>> 51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it?s a bit smaller
>> than a Nikon D4. Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
>
>
>
>
I'm wrong. No in body stabilization. But some menses offer it. Only 16
dedicated lenses are available, but that's still a substantial number. Frame
rate is 3 GPS. Enough for me.
Paul via phone
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> 645Z has in body image stabilization and mo
645Z has in body image stabilization and more than 30 autofocus lenses
available.I believe the frame rate was substantial as well but don't have time
to look now. APS-C is a great option, and 24 x 36 doesn't appear to be enough
of an upgrade for me. Others of course will feel differently.
Paul
On 4/13/2014 9:06 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
To watch me dine on cloth.
Is hat cloth?
:-)
--
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.
I agree with everything that you said, Mark. I could only add that
personally I prefer wide angle to tele, and for me to shoot K/A 24/2.8
on FF body would be far easier (both in terms of size/weight and in
terms of price) than to shoot 16/2.8 (probably from some big zoom lens)
on APS-C.
Obvio
On 13/4/14, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>? To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
>? To have access to smaller/lighter (and Med format) lenses
>? To be able to use lenses for the full-frame on both full-frame and
>APS-C bodies
>? To avoid needing to buy expensive full-frame gl
On 4/13/2014 1:09 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
• To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
• To have access to smaller/lighter (and Med format) lenses
• To be able to use lenses for the full-frame on both full-frame and
APS-C bodies
•
>Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
To be able to use existing full-frame lenses
To have access to smaller/lighter (and Med format) lenses
To be able to use lenses for the full-frame on both full-frame and
APS-C bodies
To avoid needing to buy expensive full-f
Paul, you see, I cannot agree or disagree with your statement about
appeal of bigger sensors (penile and Leican aspects aside), for it is
too general for me to able to reason about it. In my opinion it very
much depends on the specific case. It very well may be that in Israel
and in Detroit people
The fashionable appeal of sensors of a certain size seems to be wearing thin.
While a bigger sensor has had a certain cache in the past, like the Leica dot
or a large penis, it seems to be fading. And I believe Pentax is currently
selling as many K-3s as they can manufacture — although I have no
I agree, that in the hands of capable photographer K-3 with DA* 16-50
is probably 95% as good as 6D with 24-70/2.8L if seriously lighter and
somewhat smaller. However, it is not the opinion of knowledgeable
photographer such as you, Paul, that matters (no disrespect here). In
order for K-3 to compe
But I suspect that the K-3 with Pentax DA* lenses can outperform the 6D in most
respects. Or at the very least, it’s roughly equivalent. Pentax is still a
niche marketer. If they can succeed with the K-3 and the 645Z, they may well be
at the limits of their current capacity. I’d hate to see them
Indeed, you're right, Paul.
I should point out that Pentax 645Z would compete with the Nikon D4 or
Canon 1Dx (or whatever the top models they have out there), which
means prices in excess of USD 5,000. Pentax K-3 competes with Nikon
D7100 and/or Canon 70D or should they introduce replacements for
Can't use all the Pentax APS-C lenses on 24 x 36 anyway. Pentax doesn't have a
state of the art lens line for "full frame."
Paul via phone
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> 51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it’s a bit smaller
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and its a bit smaller than a
>Nikon D4. Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
So they can use the same lenses on their full-frame and their APS-C
cameras? And not buy another entire set of lenses?
--
Mark Roberts - Pho
The 645Z too. :-)
Paul via phone
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 7:01 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> That's a valid point. Although I expect the 656z to be price competitive with
> the best 24 x 36 cameras.
>
> Paul via phone
>
>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 12:24 AM, Brian Walters wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Paul
That's a valid point. Although I expect the 656z to be price competitive with
the best 24 x 36 cameras.
Paul via phone
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 12:24 AM, Brian Walters wrote:
>
> Quoting Paul Stenquist :
>
>> 51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it?s a bit smaller than
>> a Niko
Quoting Paul Stenquist :
51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it?s a bit
smaller than a Nikon D4. Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax?
Well, I don't, but price is one reason that people still want one.
--
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
We
This does seem like a very impressive tool. Earlier today I stumbled
upon the announcement that the full line of 645 FA lenses are also now
being sold in the US - taking the number of new 645 AF lenses sold in
the US from 3 to 16.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/fa-series-645-lenses-to-be-sol
51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it’s a bit smaller than a
Nikon D4. Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax? This would seem to be
Pentax/Ricoh's “full frame” answer:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-645z-specifications-leaked.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDM
31 matches
Mail list logo
