:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: DOF and format size (was: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL
STORY from AP 27th OCT.)
- Original Message -
From: dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(snip)
DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-stop. Print
magnification has nothing whatsoever
.
- Original Message -
From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Patrick White wrote:
aimcompute writes:
I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
A scroll of mail from Francis Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue,
23 Oct 2001 14:15:08 +0100
Read it? y
I am curious about your comment about increased DOF with a smaller
format. I was always under the impression that we get more DOF
- Original Message -
From: dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(snip)
DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-stop. Print
magnification has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
-
But print magnification has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Until now I have kept my silence WRT this subject
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
On 22 Oct 2001, at 14:07, aimcompute wrote:
When we
get down to it, it's not the size of the 35mm
Hey... now that's the spirit!
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Bah, I'll never buy it until they make a full size 6x7
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark wrote:
This sudden change, whatever the rationale, is inexcusable. Yes, digital
technology is advancing at a tremendous rate and the market for it isn't
stable. But in October of 2001 they can't really expect me to believe that
this is NEWS to
Dear Mike,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:37:11PM -0500, Mike Johnston wrote:
P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a full-size
sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure
it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means
MF print magnification is less than 35mm, so that cant be the reason...
-Original Message-
From: Francis Tang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 October 2001 14:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Dear Mike,
On Mon, Oct
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Frits wrote:
If the one that we already saw is upgradable, would it be possible it
would
hit the market
Does anyone think that someone from Pentax reads this list!!!???
Can I place my order right now?
Cotty
___
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads
www.macads.co.uk
-
This
Interesting
I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really
been about quality.
I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up
with more raw material than you start with.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cotty wrote:
News in AP regarding the Pentax Digital. Scrapping launch of Pentax 6 MP
digital slr in favour of lower-end digital k mount slr more along the
lines of the Canon D30 and Fuji S1. First appearance will probably be
next year's PMA.
And then in another post:
Does anyone think
Mike wrote...
snip
P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a
full-size
sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not
sure
it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses
can be significantly smaller and lighter and
Your order for the ditched 6MB or for the new one with the smaller CCD?
I am not sure how to take this news. Perhaps it means the camera is more
affordable?
If the one that we already saw is upgradable, would it be possible it would
hit the market with a smaller CCD to begin with? That might be
Mark Roberts fumed:
I certainly hope you're correct. Right now I'm still
*furious* at this latest development. I spent several
thousand dollars on equipment this year, largely based
on the confidence that the digital SLR was coming and
what I bought would be compatible.
Gambling on just
Patrick White wrote:
aimcompute writes:
I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really
been about quality.
I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up
with more raw material than you start with.
The Nikon D1x uses
17 matches
Mail list logo
