- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: Some more new camera speculation
Why ask only Rob.
Ask all the photogs, that uses Canons or Kodak kameras with larger
sensors!
The anser is of cource better resolution with less limitations, caused by
the lens resolut
PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. marts 2006 00:01
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Rob,
Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized sensor on digital?
It's much more expensive, both for the body and the lenses (note how much
cheaper the DA macro lenses, for ins
ancis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. marts 2006 00:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:51:21AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 at 13:11, John Francis wrote:
>
> > Hmm. So if the power contact
On 3/01/06 9:54 AM, "Jack Davis", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of
> emotional assumptions.
>> The Contax N Digital was nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and
>> performed even more poorly due to chip and firmware problems,
A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of
emotional assumptions.
Thanks, Bob!
Jack
--- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> >> You are not feeling especially smart, either.
> >> I recall that Pentax was pretty b
Weren't the early 645s pure mechanical coupling? If so, given
that this is the beast that Pentax is taking into the Pro DLSR
arena, what are the chances that the 645 prototype at PMA does
retain mechanical couplings? Anyone?
-Lon
John Forbes wrote:
Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:26:09 -, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
You are not feeling especially smart, either.
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
marketable due to sensor issues.
So you are telling me
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
You are not feeling especially smart, either.
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
marketable due to sensor issues.
So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an
issue when it
was shown to th
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people are just pissed that their 25-year-old
lenses need a whole extra press of a button to work on the new cameras.
Terrible isn't it, especially since the FA lenses give you all those
new features, like USM and IS... They ev
When you disagree with someones point of view it's "pissing &
moaning", when you concur it's a valid opinion?!!
Dave
On 3/1/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's
> embarrassing to even listen to it.
>
> G
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:28, John Forbes wrote:
Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are
worth more than they were new.
Of my late purchases looking at what
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's
embarrassing to even listen to it.
That ought to be in the Pentax quotations for 2006, and no smiley this
time.
Well put Godfrey.
Jostein
Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. marts 2006 07:07
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: [Bulk] Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 28 Feb 2006 at 20:09, Adam Maas wrote:
> Small market with high shipping costs and higher
On 28 Feb 2006 at 21:27, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> You folks just love hearing yourselves piss and moan. It's
> embarrassing to even listen to it.
Surely you know how to invoke a mail filter.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://me
This thread isn't about "new camera speculation". It's about whining
and moaning that some folks made what they now consider a bad
decision and blame Pentax for it by saying 'Pentax led them on'.
Feh. Pile of bullshit. Pentax' crystal ball is as murky as anyone
else's. They do what they can
On 28 Feb 2006 at 21:34, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> While you have that fever, make me happy and send me some fast glass.
I'll trade you some CAD :-)
I've earmarked an initial eight lenses to go in in the very near future, most
are pretty fast for their FLs.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel
On 28 Feb 2006 at 20:09, Adam Maas wrote:
> Small market with high shipping costs and higher payroll costs than the US.
>
> Canada's bad enough for pricing vs the US, and we're next door so the
> shipping costs don't figure into it, we do however have the other two
> problems.
Try a greedy dis
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
I do find it amusing that we still wail that Pentax isn't "as good" as the
competition.
They haven't been "as good" as the competition for about the last
om: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj: Re: Some more new camera speculation
> Date: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:19 pm
> Size: 330 bytes
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>
> On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:06, John Forbes wrote:
>
> > Make us happy and buy the Canon.
Sure, but we pay through the nose..
My 31 cost AU$1830, the 77 cost AU$1150, both bought in late 2004. I
seriously doubt that I could get that much for selling them now.
Most I suspect refuse to pay the high local asking price and buy
online from overseas.
Another example of how we're getting sc
While you have that fever, make me happy and send me some fast glass.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Some more new camera speculation
Date: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:19 pm
Size: 330 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 1
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 11:21, Rob Studdert wrote:
I really hate..
..sending stuff to the list that was meant to be private :-(
Seems to have happened to most of us at one time or another.
(sent to the list on purpose)
I've been in the market since 1975. In the US, most Pentax lenses are
worth more than they cost new. But I can understand that Australia is a
special case. Of course those lenses are just as expensive for other
Australians. If there's enough of a local market, I would think it's
not that much o
K.Takeshita wrote:
On 2/28/06 8:48 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As you can see that there is no way I will see sale prices even approaching my
purchase prices.
Perhaps you should move here so that you can walk upright with the head up,
rather than the head down over
On 2/28/06 8:48 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you can see that there is no way I will see sale prices even approaching my
> purchase prices.
Perhaps you should move here so that you can walk upright with the head up,
rather than the head down over there. That might cheer yo
OK, you're right:-). Keep the Pentax :-))
Paul
On Feb 28, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:28, John Forbes wrote:
Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses
are
worth more
On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:28, John Forbes wrote:
> Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
> before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are
> worth more than they were new.
Of my late purchases looking at what I paid in AU$ including freight an
there is more to the world than the US.
Rob Studdert
I've heard people say that before... :-)
Tom C.
On 2/28/06 7:26 PM, "John Forbes", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pentax offers better glass and more class!
Cheers :-)))
Ken
On 28 Feb 2006 at 19:18, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> There was an upgrade path to 645 or 6x7? Uh, only if you wanted to
> purchase a new system. Go buy that Caon, pal. Make yourself happy.
In addition the difference now is that any high spec body purchase is a major
investment, the published pre-re
On 28 Feb 2006 at 19:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Then you overpaid. That's your fault, not Pentax's. Every lens I bought
> in the last three years is worth at least what I paid for it. And we've
> know for at least three years that Pentax was most likely going APS-C.
> It wasn't a secret
You s
On 1 Mar 2006 at 11:21, Rob Studdert wrote:
> I really hate..
..sending stuff to the list that was meant to be private :-(
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDM
Yes, but Rob has been in the market since 1988, and in Australia, and
before the internet, and perhaps buying new. Not many Pentax lenses are
worth more than they were new.
John
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:23:10 -, Paul Stenquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then you overpaid. That's your
Yes, but it was staying in the Pentax family. You can pick on my words, but
I think you probably understood their intent.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculatio
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:18:52 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:06, John Forbes wrote:
Make us happy and buy the Canon. :-)
Ah but I like you guys and I love your reactions :-)
You don't have to leave. Canon users come here all the time. Pentax
offers
Then you overpaid. That's your fault, not Pentax's. Every lens I bought
in the last three years is worth at least what I paid for it. And we've
know for at least three years that Pentax was most likely going APS-C.
It wasn't a secret
On Feb 28, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Feb
On 28 Feb 2006 at 19:05, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > LOL, I'm just more pissed than usual today, I still have a fever.
> >
> Hope you feel better soon. Really :-)
It came on suddenly yesterday afternoon, I slept for three hours rugge
ISO 800 is fine on most DSLR's, it's at 1600 and 3200 where the FF
sensors com into their own (Not that I think 3200 on a D is horrible, it
is still better than film at the same ISO). And remember, you can't
always buy faster glass (Because you just might already have that fast
glass, as I assu
On 1 Mar 2006 at 0:06, John Forbes wrote:
> Make us happy and buy the Canon. :-)
Ah but I like you guys and I love your reactions :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user si
There was an upgrade path to 645 or 6x7? Uh, only if you wanted to
purchase a new system. Go buy that Caon, pal. Make yourself happy.
Paul
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Tom C wrote:
I suspect that about 3 people didn't buy an istF because of it. It
wasn't exactly marketed to the advanced photogr
Hi,
that would actually make sense in light of 21mm Limited - in terms of
35mm it would be ~28mm. Also, "strange" 40mm focal lenght will translate
to 52 rather than 60mm.
BR, Margus
Rob Studdert wrote:
Gleaned from a tangential post at DPReview:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd
On 28 Feb 2006 at 18:58, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> But your A, FA and LTD glass is worth more now than it was then. And
> you can now buy what was then the best Canon offering for about half of
> what it was selling for at the time. You're way ahead of the game if
> you switch now. So falling for
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 at 18:49, Adam Maas wrote:
Rob,
The only truly succesful full-frame 35mm sensors have been Canon's.
Nobody else has been able to make a 24x36mm sensor which can match the
APS-C sensor's performance. So what sensor was Pentax going to use in
the MZ-D?
I've sold some ISO 800 *istD images as stock. What's more, new faster
glass can make up an f stop just like that. I shoot low light when I
must. I don't know if I seriously shoot anything. I always try to have
fun.
Paul
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
It allows high resolution an
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:58:40 -, Paul Stenquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
If the first DSLR they showed featured an APS sized sensor I would have
been
long gone, unfortunately I fell for the carrot and I do regret it now
(especially
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
LOL, I'm just more pissed than usual today, I still have a fever.
Hope you feel better soon. Really :-)
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
If the first DSLR they showed featured an APS sized sensor I would
have been
long gone, unfortunately I fell for the carrot and I do regret it now
(especially the waiting). Had I known what their plans were I would
have had a
great Canon sy
John Francis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:27:03PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
marketable due to sen
On 28 Feb 2006 at 18:49, Adam Maas wrote:
> Rob,
>
> The only truly succesful full-frame 35mm sensors have been Canon's.
> Nobody else has been able to make a 24x36mm sensor which can match the
> APS-C sensor's performance. So what sensor was Pentax going to use in
> the MZ-D?
At the time it
I suspect that about 3 people didn't buy an istF because of it. It wasn't
exactly marketed to the advanced photographer.
It was a perhaps too subtle signal about their intent.
The A style lens only bodies were completely ignored by this group.
istF? Pentax, the camera company that makes you cl
Panasonic doesn't seem to agree about aperture rings. And Nikon users
have better compatibility with older glass as long as it's been
AI-modified, even being able to use Matrix-Metering on the D200, D2x and
D2H(s). Pentax is unique in that the inexpensive bodies are functional
with low-end glas
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:27:03PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Studdert"
> Subject: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
>
>
>
> >>I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not b
Rob,
The only truly succesful full-frame 35mm sensors have been Canon's.
Nobody else has been able to make a 24x36mm sensor which can match the
APS-C sensor's performance. So what sensor was Pentax going to use in
the MZ-D?
-Adam
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 at 17:27, William Robb
On 28 Feb 2006 at 23:01, John Forbes wrote:
>
> And for those who say that the market has abandoned the Pentax 645, how
> did they ever manage to sell the first 645? There are still huge
> quantities of 645 lenses out there, and I for one will bet that as long as
> the price and performance
It allows high resolution and low noise compared to a similar APS-C
sized sensor. Noise levels are directly related to the size of a sensor
site, and the larger the sensor the larger the sites for a given
resolution. If you seriously shoot low-light, the 5D is pretty much
entry-level for high-r
On 28 Feb 2006 at 17:27, William Robb wrote:
> I do find it amusing that we still wail that Pentax isn't "as good" as the
> competition.
> They haven't been "as good" as the competition for about the last 4 decades,
> yet we all bought into their cameras.
> Are we really that slow to catch on?
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:22:59 -, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:12:36PM -, John Forbes wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:00:08 -, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>With the announcement of the new body, and a lens roadmap that shows
>those ne
On 28 Feb 2006 at 18:15, John Francis wrote:
> That's conspiracy theory running rampant.
LOL, I'm just more pissed than usual today, I still have a fever.
> The MZ-S was a one-off, high-end completion of the MZ range, designed
> as the end of the film line for the advanced amateur. As such, it
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
marketable due to sensor issues.
So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:12:36PM -, John Forbes wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:00:08 -, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >With the announcement of the new body, and a lens roadmap that shows
> >those new f2.8 zooms arriving shortly afterwards, I feel a lot more
> >confident
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:19:59AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 at 15:59, William Robb wrote:
>
> > Considering that their first DSLR body was barely compatable with pre A
> > series lenses, I hardly think that anyone has led anyone on.
>
> The display of a FF DSLR followed by the
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:00:08 -, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:51:21AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 at 13:11, John Francis wrote:
> Hmm. So if the power contacts come back, presumably we would
> get at least one more digital signal pin to c
Rob,
Just what is the attraction of a 35mm-sized sensor on digital?
It's much more expensive, both for the body and the lenses (note how much
cheaper the DA macro lenses, for instance, are than the FA lenses). There
are now good wide-angle options.
All the evidence suggests, and has for s
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:51:21AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 at 13:11, John Francis wrote:
>
> > Hmm. So if the power contacts come back, presumably we would
> > get at least one more digital signal pin to control the in-lens
> > features (including, but not necessarily limited
The new 645D lens is obviously intended to give them a fast normal.
With the smaller sensor, 58mm works out to just about normal lens FOV.
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 at 16:33, Ryan Brooks wrote:
The 645D is already behind the pro medium format back curve;
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Brooks"
Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
The 645D is already behind the pro medium format back curve; pro
photographers have left their Pentax MF gear behind. A body that was
more friendly to 3rd party backs would have
On 28 Feb 2006 at 16:41, William Robb wrote:
> You are not feeling especially smart, either.
> I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not being
> marketable due to sensor issues.
So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an issue when it
was shown to the m
Nonsense. No one has been deceived. Products and brands evolve. Pentax
has chosen a path that it believes is most conducive to establishing
itself as a player in the DSLR market. They're not out to hurt anyone.
That would be stupid. Aperture rings and mechanical linkages are things
of the past,
On 28 Feb 2006 at 16:33, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> The 645D is already behind the pro medium format back curve; pro
> photographers have left their Pentax MF gear behind.
What amused me ever so slightly was that a new D specific 645 lens was on the
roadmap. Do they think that the existing glass won'
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
On 28 Feb 2006 at 15:59, William Robb wrote:
Considering that their first DSLR body was barely compatable with pre A
series lenses, I hardly think that anyone has led anyone
The display of a FF DSLR followed by the *ist D with it's lack of aperture ring
support then the gradual roll-out of aperture ring-less DA lenses and now the
discontinuation of the FA lenses was orchestrated in such a way as to deceive.
If they think that their strategy will have people runnin
On 28 Feb 2006 at 15:59, William Robb wrote:
> Considering that their first DSLR body was barely compatable with pre A
> series lenses, I hardly think that anyone has led anyone on.
The display of a FF DSLR followed by the *ist D with it's lack of aperture ring
support then the gradual roll-out
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Re: Some more new camera speculation
I don't know why they didn't just dump the mount with the first digital
body
rather than lead us on like they have. It's now obvious what direction
they are
headi
On 28 Feb 2006 at 13:11, John Francis wrote:
> Hmm. So if the power contacts come back, presumably we would
> get at least one more digital signal pin to control the in-lens
> features (including, but not necessarily limited to, USM motors).
The two pins could easily deliver power and I/O
> Add
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:56:56PM +, mike wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2006/02/28 Tue PM 03:49:23 GMT
> > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
> > Subject: Re: Some more new camera specula
On 2006-02-28, at 18:10, K.Takeshita wrote:
This could also be an indication that the camera may have a dust/
drip proof
seal, if not water proof.
Yes, it would be much easier to seal this kind of switch.
Nah, from the logical point of view that would be too many good
things from Pentax at o
On 2/28/06 10:40 AM, "Sylwester Pietrzyk", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AF-C/AF-S/MF switch has radically
> different build and this is a part of AF system in Pentax camera
This could also be an indication that the camera may have a dust/drip proof
seal, if not water proof.
Ken
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:56 AM, mike wilson wrote:
That would be progressive replacement, as most people seem to agree
that PZ was not a good implementation of technology. Replacement
of mechanical aperture linkage with (effectively) nothing is not
progressive
I've never seen the point t
>
> From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/02/28 Tue PM 03:49:23 GMT
> To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
> Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
>
> mike wilson wrote on 28.02.06 16:45:
>
> > I'm more interested
mike wilson wrote on 28.02.06 16:45:
> I'm more interested in what is meant by "progressive replacement". PZ
> contacts could be used for USM?
Yes, they could, as in their patent (KAF3?), which I've sent in PDF file to
a few people.
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
>
> From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/02/28 Tue PM 03:16:05 GMT
> To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
> Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
>
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 28.02.06 16:03:
>
> > I've nev
>
> From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/02/28 Tue PM 03:05:55 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Some more new camera speculation
>
> On 2/28/06 9:10 AM, "Sylwester Pietrzyk", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No it wasn&
K.Takeshita wrote on 28.02.06 16:05:
> Actually, I was thinking the same thing, perhaps with some wishful thinking
> (remember, it's a "silly season" :-). But I did not post it for the fear of
> raising the blood pressure of some PDMLers unnecessarily. Now that you said
> it
Exactly. It is s
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 28.02.06 16:03:
> I've never taken one apart, but according to the technology
> discussion and video animation that KM posted when the D7 came out,
> the sensor moves up to 5mm in H and V directions from the reference
> midpoint. That's 1cm.
Oh yes, thi way it is possible
On 2/28/06 9:10 AM, "Sylwester Pietrzyk", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it wasn't directly implicated, just my feeling ;-)
> But distracting from this - don't you have Rob a strange feeling that new
> camera will accept lenses with ultrasonic motor? Would it be coincidence
> that suddenly on roa
On Feb 28, 2006, at 1:20 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Evidently, the sensor in the Konica Minolta D7 and D5 is capable of
moving about 1cm.
Ehm... slight exaggeration, I've got demo of AS built on inners of
Dynax
(Maxxum) 7D and it moves about a few mm max on each side.
I've never taken o
On 28 Feb 2006 at 15:10, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> No it wasn't directly implicated, just my feeling ;-)
> But distracting from this - don't you have Rob a strange feeling that new
> camera will accept lenses with ultrasonic motor? Would it be coincidence
> that suddenly on roadmap of Pentax len
Rob Studdert wrote on 28.02.06 16:00:
> None of the translations that I read actually reported that he said that it
> was
> a Sony chip, it may have been inferred but that seems to be all. We'll see in
> time I guess.
No it wasn't directly implicated, just my feeling ;-)
But distracting from this
On 28 Feb 2006 at 10:26, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> That would be interesting. But from interview with Mr. Torigoe one could
> rather conclude that sensor will come from Sony. It doesn't have to be the
> one from Nikon D200 especially that my friend who has close relationship
> with Nikon Poland
Hi Kevin,
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:46:26 +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>I dont get it, the web page says the chip size is
>29.0 mm (H) x 19.1 mm (V)
>
>yet, it claims "Full-Frame CCD; with Square Pixels"
>I dont get it? am I missing something here?
Seems so, this is 'sensor talk' not 'camera talk'
On 28 Feb 2006 at 20:46, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > RS> What like the 40mm DA that apparently happens to almost fully cover FF?
>
> I dont get it, the web page says the chip size is
> 29.0 mm (H) x 19.1 mm (V)
>
> yet, i
Rob Studdert wrote on 28.02.06 1:12:
> Gleaned from a tangential post at DPReview:
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/products/fullframe/KAF-
> 10010/specifications.jhtml?id=0.1.4.8.4.7.4&lc=en
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ks8w8
>
> Now that I would stick around for. What's the likelihood
This one time, at band camp, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RS> What like the 40mm DA that apparently happens to almost fully cover FF?
I dont get it, the web page says the chip size is
29.0 mm (H) x 19.1 mm (V)
yet, it claims "Full-Frame CCD; with Square Pixels"
I dont get it? am I
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 28.02.06 10:00:
> Evidently, the sensor in the Konica Minolta D7 and D5 is capable of
> moving about 1cm.
Ehm... slight exaggeration, I've got demo of AS built on inners of Dynax
(Maxxum) 7D and it moves about a few mm max on each side.
--
Balance is the ultimate good..
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:30 PM, John Francis wrote:
That was the thought process I was following. Pentax is
committed to
the DA lens size - we just don't know exactly how much bigger
than the
APS sized sensor it might support - other than Full Frame isn't
in the
short term cards.
Might a
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Rob Studdert wrote:
Now that I would stick around for. What's the likelihood that Pentax would be
sourcing a 1.3x sensor from Kodak considering that the 645D sensor is likely
from the same crowd? Purely speculation on my part but hey that's what this
list's about?
Hmm, wil
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:04:40PM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2006 at 17:21, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> > That was the thought process I was following. Pentax is committed to
> > the DA lens size - we just don't know exactly how much bigger than the
> > APS sized sensor it might support
On 27 Feb 2006 at 17:21, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> That was the thought process I was following. Pentax is committed to
> the DA lens size - we just don't know exactly how much bigger than the
> APS sized sensor it might support - other than Full Frame isn't in the
> short term cards.
Might also be
I would expect most DA prime lenses in the 24-80mm range, whether DA
or not, could acceptably cover up to 35mm. Acceptable is not
necessarily the same thing as superb quality however.
Zooms are another animal. The gains for zooms in terms of reducing
size and weight by minimizing image circ
That was the thought process I was following. Pentax is committed to
the DA lens size - we just don't know exactly how much bigger than the
APS sized sensor it might support - other than Full Frame isn't in the
short term cards.
--
Bruce
Monday, February 27, 2006, 6:07:15 PM, you wrote:
RS> O
101 - 200 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
