William Robb wrote:
>> P. J. Alling wrote:
>>
>>> (and they wonder why no one trusts them...)
>>>
>
> Mission Accomplished.
>
> GWB
>
Hello, Mr. President. Welcome to the PDML.
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://p
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> > (and they wonder why no one trusts them...)
> >
>
Mission Accomplished.
GWB
--
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.
It's area that matters for how many pixels you can stuff in there, and
thus the resolution. Using the pixel density of the ~12MP Nikon D3, at
118 pixels per mm, a 42x56mm sensor would be 32.7MP. Linear
differences don't really indicate the actual resolution differences,
because they only indicate o
Obviously their marketing arms for various devices didn't speak to each
other. The Marketing blurb for Photo CD's (6mp images), basically said
that 6mp was the equal of 35mm. The document that contained that has
apparently disappeared from the Kodak web site. That doesn't stop it
from having
No Kodak was saying 14mp back when I bought my Nikon Coolpix 100 (According to
the receipt I ran across the other day that was in early 1998). Now their sales
literature may have said something different but that was the figure that I got
from their website back then. IIRC, that was in compariso
Area is only meaningful to advertising copy writers.
Presuming you are happy with a 3:4 image 645 is 1.75x the size of 35mm, if you
want 2:3 it is 1.55x. So a full 645 format will allow about 1-1/2 times the
resolution of a full frame 35mm. That is assuming a 42mm x 56mm format and the
same ppi
Is is not officially cancelled, and is reportedly a favorite project. Of
course none of that means that it will appear.
Joe
--
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
Yes, but the native resolution numbers aren't that much lower unless
you're looking t older lenses, and the area is a whole LOT larger. 645
alone has 2.7 times the area of 35mm. That's a lot of space to put
pixels in. MF digital is comfortably up to 39MP now and there's likely
room for more.
-Adam
Actually Kodak's sales literature, (propaganda), originally said it was
6mp, oh yes and wonder of wonders their high end photo,
("professional"), CD supplied 6mp. Funny how it became 14mp when they
offered products with higher resolutions...
(and they wonder why no one trusts them...)
graywol
Actually, IIRC, with few exceptions, medium format lenses have lower
native resolution figures that 35mm. They don't need it due to the size
of the photosensitive surface they're projecting an image on.
Adam Maas wrote:
> I dunno about that. The 1DsmIII is pushing the limits of what 35mm
> glas
It does make me wonder when I hear now about "physically impossible"
products like APS sensors with low noise, etc. I hear too many of
these definitive engineering proof arguments that turned out to be dead
wrong.
>>> graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/5/2007 9:13 AM >>>
Things change.
I can remem
Things change.
I can remember when all a photojournalist needed was a couple of Leica bodies
and 3 lenses (35,50,90). Before my time he could get by with a couple of
Rolleifexs; and before that all he needed was a Speed Graphic with one lens.
There was quite a bit of argument about what resolut
Funny. I remember about 6 years ago when people claimed that we would
need 24 MP to equal 35 mm film. If anyone had actually described
today's situation at that time few would have believed them. Besides, I
could never affros that Canon. Or better, I could never justify paying
that much.
Steve
I dunno about that. The 1DsmIII is pushing the limits of what 35mm
glass is capable of. While a ~22MP 645D wouldn't necessarily compete
well (Although the Mamiya ZD back is selling every unit Mamiya can
push out, at a similar cost to the 1DsmIII) a higher-rez unit might
well be competetive, and the
An interesting user review of the new Canon 1Ds MkIII, which confirms my
feeling that the 645D was swimming upstream without the spawning
possibilities...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mada-iiis.shtml
I would consider this very bad news for an eventual 645D if it were ever
15 matches
Mail list logo
