On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 07:38 PM, Cameron Hood wrote:
I downloaded a jpeg from that camera, and printed it on my Epson 1270 on max
rez at 11x14 with premium glossy and...
Holy crap...
It's pretty nice, isn't it?
And Pentax hasn't even entered the fray.
This is a MAJOR blunder by
It's
because Pentax can't make any money selling a DSLR. The amount of costthat
would need to be amortized over the relatively short product life of a DSLR, and
the small number of units that Pentax can sell would make the cost of the camera
very high.There will be fewer manufacturers of
I don't buy this, for the following reasons:
- Any company would have done a business case analysis before proceeding
with the MZ-D prototypes, and we know they got far along before
cancelling. Obviously there was a pricepoint that worked.
- We're still buying non-autofocus A* lenses fer
On 9 Oct 2002 at 13:52, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- A 6MP DSLR would still be competitive today, two years after it was
announced.
But not at the price announced. As far as I can tell, the price of the
Philips/DALSA CCD hasn't come down so they need a
on 10.10.02 0:47, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was a price ever announced by Pentax? As far as I can recall the only price
that was mentioned was that published by the french mag (for got the name)
based solely on the cost of a one off purchase of the Philips 6MP sensor + a
fudge
On 10 Oct 2002 at 1:01, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
on 10.10.02 0:47, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was a price ever announced by Pentax? As far as I can recall the only price
that was mentioned was that published by the french mag (for got the name)
based solely on the cost of
; we love ya, man!
Cameron
Fellow Pentaxian
From: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)
*Subject: RE: D1s review
*Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 06:25:27 -0700
You can't say this sort of stuff here unless you want to be branded
Well, I'm not Rubinstein, but I think it's safe for me to speak for him.
It was a piece of sarcasm, since I've been vilified for stating the things
you did, which I happen to full agree with.
B. RubEnstein
From: Cameron Hood
Branded by who? You? I would be worried and embarrased if it was
vilified like he's a poor innocent victim.hahahahaha
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: D1s review; a friendly rebuke to Mr. Rubinstein
Well, I'm not Rubinstein
On 9 Oct 2002 at 17:29, Cameron Hood wrote:
We all share a common love, photography and gear, and are brought together
by the fact that we use Pentax stuff, which is, was, and always will be,
fabulous. Your MF gear will still be great when they introduce the 2 gig
chips. Film will not die;
I downloaded a jpeg from that camera, and printed it on my Epson 1270 on max
rez at 11x14 with premium glossy and...
Holy crap...
I can see why there is a glut of used MF stuff on the market now.
It is as good or better than the best of my 35mm stuff at that size. Clean
as a whistle, not a
Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he
didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise
reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a
disadvantage? Also, he says that 4000dpi is his perceived maximum of
information from
Rob Brigham wrote:
Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he
didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise
reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a
disadvantage? Also, he says that 4000dpi is his perceived maximum
Sorry, by ICE I meant ICE3 or more accurately GEM.
-Original Message-
From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I've never found ICE to reduce all the noise... after all
there's noise
that comes from the film itself. I scan at 4000dpi on my SS120 and
have
concluded the
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he
didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise
reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a
disadvantage? Also, he says that
15 matches
Mail list logo
