Sylwester Pietrzyk a écrit:
on 04.02.03 11:19, Alin Flaider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henry wrote:
IHC> According to the patents, the new lens with K-AF3
IHC> mount can be mounted onto old cameras via an adaptor.
I'll have to check this for myself. An adaptor implies a mechanical
change in
Dear all,
> If I recall, Pentax also had a patent for a new AF
> system along with the KAF3 mount.
>
> I wonder how different this AF will be. Cross sensors?
> More AF pts? Faster?
We first have to wait and whether it comes at all. I remember from the
patents >that it was a type of multi-
Bruce wrote:
> The real
> question is whether 645 will fight 'em or join 'em (them being
> digital). I would argue that a less than full frame sensor for 645
> makes less sense than a full frame 35mm sensor due to weight and size
> of the supporting lenses.
I feel confident that they will. I'm t
Rob,
I stand corrected. :) Certainly one could argue that the two aspects
of MF are cost and image quality. Since the 645 is a smaller format
than the 67, it should be encroached upon sooner than 67. The cost to
get to 67 quality will be higher than getting to 645. The real
question is whether
Peter wrote:
> If I recall, Pentax also had a patent for a new AF
> system along with the KAF3 mount.
>
> I wonder how different this AF will be. Cross sensors?
> More AF pts? Faster?
We first have to wait and whether it comes at all. I remember from the patents that it
was a type of mult
On 3 Feb 2003 at 11:28, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> But everyone is already saying that Canon 1DS is competing head to
> head with 645 already.
That should read "But everyone with vested interests is already saying that..."
I do agree though 645 will be the first medium format to succumb to
If I recall, Pentax also had a patent for a new AF
system along with the KAF3 mount.
I wonder how different this AF will be. Cross sensors?
More AF pts? Faster?
Peter
--- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>
> > This would answer the constant criticism of Pentax
> not
Rob wrote:
> This would answer the constant criticism of Pentax not having changeable
> backs perhaps?
Very unlikely as this will make the camera larger, not smaller. Besides, I suspect the
interchangeable back crowd will go digital real soon, if not already. No, this is
again the MF field ca
Bruce wrote:
>I've looked over the 67II and can't see
> any radical way to shrink the size. I'm sure little cuts here and
> there would shrink it a bit - maybe using more materials like in the
> MZ-S would reduce it's weight a bit more.
It can anything from update of the current version to a 6X
Ryan,
But everyone is already saying that Canon 1DS is competing head to
head with 645 already. Why bother? The next generation of chips will
probably surpass it. On the film front, there still may be advantages
(cost for sure) in using 67. In the end, maybe it will have a longer
life than the
Rob Brigham wrote:
But you could put a 645 size sensor on an insert for a 67 based
system...
But there's already AF and full automation for the 645Nii, so it makes
more sense to stick with that.
645 would still be a crop.
R
le.
RB> Besides the criticism of not having changeable backs came up WELL before
RB> the age of digital. Perhaps they are finally adressing it.
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 03 February 2003 17:35
>> To: [EMAIL PR
n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:15 PM
>> To: Pål Jensen
>> Subject: Re: New 67 and new generation of K-mount?
>>
>>
>> As with the KMount for 35mm, preservation of current lens usage is
>> important to me in a new 67. I woul
having changeable backs came up WELL before
the age of digital. Perhaps they are finally adressing it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 February 2003 17:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: New 67 and new generation of K-m
A digital option for 67 is a joke. You're not going to get anywhere
near a full frame unless it's megabucks.
They need to start with 35mm, then do 645- which makes a lot more sense.
Rob Brigham wrote:
This would answer the constant criticism of Pentax not having changeable
backs perhaps?
Man
Maybe it's a rangefinder.
HAR!
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:15 PM
> To: Pål Jensen
> Subject: Re: New 67 and new generation of K-mount?
>
>
> As with the KMount for 35mm, prese
New 67 and new generation of K-mount?
>
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > Now a new 67 would excite me even more than a DSLR. Any
> more to the
> > rumor?
>
> Nope. That's all I have for now. However, you are free to
> speculate. Since it is supposedly smaller,
As with the KMount for 35mm, preservation of current lens usage is
important to me in a new 67. I would dearly love to see a 75mm leaf
shutter lens. The 90 is liveable, but not quite wide enough and is
not in production anymore. I've looked over the 67II and can't see
any radical way to shrink t
Bruce wrote:
> Now a new 67 would excite me even more than a DSLR. Any more to the
> rumor?
Nope. That's all I have for now. However, you are free to speculate. Since it is
supposedly smaller, I suspect a total redesign.
Anyway, the source is reliable so this seems to be real. Those who suspec
Pål,
Now a new 67 would excite me even more than a DSLR. Any more to the
rumor?
Bruce
Monday, February 3, 2003, 6:41:24 AM, you wrote:
PJ> Seems I was wrong. I though the 67 was doomed. Apparently Pentax might show a new,
more compact 67 (will it be a digital solution as well?).
PJ> Rumo
20 matches
Mail list logo
