Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contax even shipped a camera based on the Phillips sensor ... and it
was a disaster.
There were a lot of factors that combined to make the Contax digital a
flop: Abysmal battery life and horrible autofocus seemed to be the main
operational problems.
Mark Roberts wrote on 25.08.05 13:55:
There were a lot of factors that combined to make the Contax digital a
flop: Abysmal battery life and horrible autofocus seemed to be the main
operational problems. Apparently, the Contax-supplied RAW conversion
software was so bad as to make RAW shots
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 07:54 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
There were a lot of factors that combined to make the Contax digital a
flop: Abysmal battery life and horrible autofocus seemed to be the
main
operational problems. Apparently, the Contax-supplied RAW conversion
software
Bob Shell wrote on 25.08.05 14:06:
At the time the Contax ND was introduced Pentax also showed a pro
digital camera that would have used the same Philips (now Dalsa) chip.
Pentax wisely decided to kill the project when the price per chip was
raised by Philips. Kyocera should have done the
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote on 25.08.05 14:45:
I wonder then if these FF sensors made by Dalsa today reached at least
quality of the best APS-C sensors?
BTW, on Dalsa web page there is interesting comparison of CCD and CMOS
sensors:
http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
--
Balance is the
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder then if these FF sensors made by Dalsa today reached at least
quality of the best APS-C sensors?
Doesn't make much difference in practice if they aren't priced
reasonably...
The price of the original 6 megapixel full-frame chip was always an
Jens Bladt wrote:
FF was an issue as long as many consumers/photographers had very large
amounts of money invested in expensive glass for 35mm film. This segment is
getting smaller every day. No sane company will invest a lot in making new
camera systems for a 35mm sensor. Certainly not Pentax.
:47 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Wrong answer.
Sensores don't get bigger and bigger, I believe. They get smaller and
smaller, better, faster, cheaper - and have more MP's - just like everything
else electronic. Today 15,7 X 23,5mm (APS size) seems to be a rather
Toralf Lund wrote:
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how about a 36x36 mm sensor? Wouldn't
that be the ultimate size for a 35mm body and lens? I mean, the
elements being circular, surely the lens should handle the same size
On Aug 24, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Pat White wrote:
What, doesn't everybody want 8x12 or 13.5x20 enlargements? I used
to pay extra for them (got some on the wall, looking good), but now
I just shoot with extra room for cropping. Much simpler for frames
and mats.
I used to ask for full-frame
Tom C wrote on 24.08.05 8:35:
When FF sensors get low enough in price, get all those new
customers to upgrade to FF and sell more FF lenses.
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. 5D is not going to sell in very large
quantities (for every 1 sold 5D there'll be 100 sold APS-C DSLRs)
and there is
8x12 and 11x17 precut mats are fairly common these days. I buy them all
the time at the local camera store.
Paul
On Aug 24, 2005, at 1:09 AM, Pat White wrote:
What, doesn't everybody want 8x12 or 13.5x20 enlargements? I used to
pay extra for them (got some on the wall, looking good), but now
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does everyone measure prints, to make sure they get their money's worth?
Or, am I missing something...
I measure mine as mostly they need to be 8x10
Most people who get large prints do so to
Mark Roberts wrote:
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does everyone measure prints, to make sure they get their money's worth?
Or, am I missing something...
I measure mine as mostly they need to be 8x10
Most people
Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wrong answer.
Sensores don't get bigger and bigger, I believe. They get smaller and
smaller, better, faster, cheaper - and have more MP's - just like everything
else electronic. Today 15,7 X 23,5mm (APS size) seems to be a rather large
sensor. The 8 MP SONY
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I disagree with this assessment. The reason is that lenses can only put out
so many lines per mm and once the sensors become dense enough
the only way to increase captured resolution is to increase the
sixe of the sensor and use longer lenses with bigger image circles
at
- Original Message -
From: keithw
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
But, that's for personal use, not for sale prints.
And that's about 97.4% of the prints made.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: keithw
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Ten make him an 11 X 13 1/4, or 11 X 12 3/4. It's a custom print anyhow,
isn't it?
Does everyone measure prints, to make sure they get their money's worth?
Or, am I missing something...
No one wants to pay
in making new
camera systems for a 35mm sensor. Certainly not Pentax.
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Pat White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 24. august 2005 07:09
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
What
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
About No sane company will invest a lot in making new camera systems for
a 35mm sensor. Tell that to Canon, they seem to be
making a lot of money these days.
I think Canon actually made a small
P. J. Alling wrote on 24.08.05 16:35:
About No sane company will invest a lot in making new camera systems
for a 35mm sensor. Tell that to Canon, they seem to be
making a lot of money these days.
Not on FF DSLRs though...
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote on 24.08.05 16:35:
About No sane company will invest a lot in making new camera systems
for a 35mm sensor. Tell that to Canon, they seem to be
making a lot of money these days.
Not on FF DSLRs though...
They *made* a lot of
Mark Roberts wrote on 24.08.05 17:17:
They *made* a lot of money on FF DSLR's. The pool of people willing and
able to meet the $8000 asking price is drying up so they've
(reluctantly) moved down the pricing ladder. They'll make lots of money
on this one too.
So far it seems that D2X sells
The high end sells the low end.
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote on 24.08.05 16:35:
About No sane company will invest a lot in making new camera systems
for a 35mm sensor. Tell that to Canon, they seem to be
making a lot of money these days.
Not on FF DSLRs though...
Steve Jolly wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how about a 36x36 mm sensor? Wouldn't
that be the ultimate size for a 35mm body and lens? I mean, the
elements being circular, surely the lens should
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: keithw
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Ten make him an 11 X 13 1/4, or 11 X 12 3/4. It's a custom print
anyhow, isn't it?
Does everyone measure prints, to make sure they get their money's worth?
Or, am I missing something
On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Tom C wrote:
... I have thought since day 1 of DSLR's, that the APS form factor
was largely a short term tactic to get consumers to buy new lenses
to go with those fancy new DSLR's. Sell APS DSLR's in the short
term and 'digital' glass to go with them. When
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Tom C wrote:
... I have thought since day 1 of DSLR's, that the APS form factor
was largely a short term tactic to get consumers to buy new lenses
to go with those fancy new DSLR's. Sell APS DSLR's in the short
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'd like a 26 x 34 sensor myself: It's just about the same image
circle as a 24 x 36 but in the 3:4 ratio I prefer (one of the
things I like about the 645 format).
I'm with you, Mark, on the 3:4
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:49:52 -0400
Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wrong answer.
Sensores don't get bigger and bigger, I believe. They get smaller and
smaller, better, faster, cheaper - and have more MP's - just like
everything
else electronic. Today 15,7 X
this market, where likely the FF sensor would not have.
Thanks for the Canon info. Weight or size is not an issue for me.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09
I need to get around to printing some more panoramas... if only I had
the wall space to hang them!
- Dave
Enablement time! A bigger house to hang photos. :)
Powell
On Aug 24, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Tom C wrote:
I understand what you're saying and do not doubt the truth in your
words. However, I use the ill-fated MZ-D as an example... Pentax
obviously had a FF model designed and close to production.
Understandably, either the sensor was of
. august 2005 08:36
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Jens Bladt wrote:
FF was an issue as long as many consumers/photographers had very large
amounts of money invested in expensive glass for 35mm film. This segment is
getting smaller every day. No sane company will invest
On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
... I have thought since day 1 of DSLR's, that the APS form factor
was largely a short term tactic to get consumers to buy new lenses to
go with those fancy new DSLR's. Sell APS DSLR's in the short term and
'digital'
-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:03:13 -0400
On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
... I have thought since day 1 of DSLR's, that the APS form factor was
largely a short term tactic to get
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Yes, and there is a theoretical limit to how small you can make a sensor
element, too. It's quantum mechanics; a CCD/CMOS sensor element
Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25. august 2005 02:08
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor
: RE: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Herb.
What are you saying here? Is the rule of thumb wrong in general, or is it
another thing when shooting digital?
My experience is that the rule of thumb is relative. Sometimes I miss when
shooting within the limits. Some times I can go one step below.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Powell Hargrave wrote:
Enablement time! A bigger house to hang photos. :)
Oh dear... I just tried that. Maybe I should board up some windows.
I could free up some wall space by taking down the AOHC poster in my
office, but that wouldn't be right :)
- Dave
I've seen some lenses with rectangular shaped cutouts in the back, so
those probably wouldnt work. And then there are hoods designed with the
image rectangle in mind...
Toralf Lund wrote:
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how
I don't know much about sensor technology, but Hasselblad seems to have
very large size sensors:
On
http://www.hasselblad.se/frames/contentframe.asp?pageURL=/general/SectionToItem.asp?secId=1135
they claim that The 22 Mpixels sensor is 37x49mm
Seems a bit ridiculous for just me, but hey,
Hmmm ... the site says that the image size is 132 MByte 16 bit RGB
That's about the same size I get when scanning a 35mm color neg with the
Nikon Coolscan.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Vic Mortelmans
I don't know much about sensor technology, but Hasselblad seems to have
very
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how about a 36x36 mm sensor? Wouldn't
that be the ultimate size for a 35mm body and lens? I mean, the
elements being circular, surely the lens should handle
I think 36x36 or 38x38 is pretty much what the highend digital digital backs
for the Rollei or Hasselblad are using. You get that for $10-20K. Of course you
also get a true 16bits per pixel.
BTW 38x38 millimeters is pretty close to a mounted Super Slide from 127 film or
cut down 120.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
I'd like a 26 x 34 sensor myself: It's just about the same image circle
as a 24 x 36 but in the 3:4 ratio I prefer (one of the things I like
about the 645 format).
What a marvelous idea.
Then my SLR
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Roberts
I'd like a 26 x 34 sensor myself: It's just about the same image circle
as a 24 x 36 but in the 3:4 ratio I prefer (one of the things I like
about the 645 format).
What a marvelous idea.
Then my SLR customers can bitch at me about my
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Oh man, don't get me started on the subject of photo store customers who
don't understand the concept of ratios
No, don't get me started.
Really.
I have even replaced some hot sellers on our countertop unit
Mark Roberts wrote:
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Roberts
I'd like a 26 x 34 sensor myself: It's just about the same image circle
as a 24 x 36 but in the 3:4 ratio I prefer (one of the things I like
about the 645 format).
What a marvelous idea.
Then my SLR customers can
This one time, at band camp, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does everyone measure prints, to make sure they get their money's worth?
Or, am I missing something...
I measure mine as mostly they need to be 8x10
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'd like a 26 x 34 sensor myself: It's just about the same image
circle
as a 24 x 36 but in the 3:4 ratio I prefer (one of the things I like
about the 645 format).
I'm with you, Mark, on the 3:4 proportion format. Less paper wastage
for
What, doesn't everybody want 8x12 or 13.5x20 enlargements? I used to pay
extra for them (got some on the wall, looking good), but now I just shoot
with extra room for cropping. Much simpler for frames and mats.
Pat White
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Pat White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 24. august 2005 07:09
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
What, doesn't everybody want 8x12 or 13.5x20 enlargements? I used to pay
extra for them
53 matches
Mail list logo
