Holy S---!! Pentax's medium format is only $9400!!!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Cylinder liner....
Next: Electric locomotive...
From: stephe_k on 12 Mar 2010 23:53 David J. Littleboy wrote: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a >> different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel >> density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe >> this :-) > > It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with MF > lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of unsurmountable > problems are silly, unfounded BS. My only claim was this MP density isn't needed at the resolution these lenses have. I'd be shocked if you could see any difference in say a 30MP version of this same crop camera. You might be hard pressed to see improvement over a 20MP version. Did I say anywhere this would be a "unsurmountable problem"? What I posted was this MP density was likely chosen for marketing reasons rather than any performance concerns. Clearly you can use a sensor/film that is higher resolution than the lens without problems as far as resolution. Stephanie
From: David J. Littleboy on 13 Mar 2010 00:27 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > David J. Littleboy wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a >>> different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel >>> density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe >>> this :-) >> >> It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with MF >> lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of unsurmountable >> problems are silly, unfounded BS. > > My only claim was this MP density isn't needed at the resolution these > lenses have. That's a stupid claim, then. But it wasn't your claim: you were clearly claiming that the resolution of MF lenses wasn't adequate. And that's dead wrong. > I'd be shocked if you could see any difference in say a 30MP version of > this same crop camera. That's bad logic. Think about it: your "you could[n't] see any difference" isn't transitive. Why bother with 30MP when you can't see the difference between 30MP and 24MP. Why bother with 24MP when you can't see the difference with 20MP. Do this a few more times, and 1 pixel will be all you need. > You might be hard pressed to see improvement over a 20MP version. Here you are dead wrong. A doubling of MP count represents a 40% increase in linear resolution and that is very significant. Reality check: people shoot 4x5 and larger for good reason. But we're still not up to 4x5 and larger resolution levels. > Did I say anywhere this would be a "unsurmountable problem"? Yes. You've been squawking that MF lenses aren't good enough, and you are dead wrong. Go back and read what you wrote. > What I posted was this MP density was likely chosen for marketing reasons > rather than any performance concerns. It was chosen because there are professional photographers who need this performance. This is a market of professionals who know what they are doing and don't waste their money on equipment that isn't needed, not amateurs who never print larger than A4. > Clearly you can use a sensor/film that is higher resolution than the lens > without problems as far as resolution. But you still haven't realized that 40MP in a 33x44mm sensor isn't higher resolution than the lens. In fact, it's a very good match for 645 lenses. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: David J. Littleboy on 13 Mar 2010 00:31 "Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:56:27 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote: > >> Doesn't the AF system beep at you when you use MF lenses on the AF >> versions of the Pentax 645? > > My 645n can beep, but I still find a prism viewfinder easier for > manual focus. I'm convinced this is an area of photography > where each person has to work out what's best for themselves. Good point. I ran into a bloke with a split image in a 20D, and it worked really well. My Mamiya 7's rangefinder is hard to use, and the Fuji GS645S, which is otherwise a great camera, is a bear to focus. > I do know that KatzEye has found a very nice niche business > adding prism finders to various dSLR's. Grumble: they don't make one for the 5D or 5D2. I'd try it if they did. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: MikeWhy on 13 Mar 2010 00:47 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hnf5os$no6$1(a)news.albasani.net... > David J. Littleboy wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a >>> different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel >>> density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe >>> this :-) >> >> It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with MF >> lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of unsurmountable >> problems are silly, unfounded BS. > > My only claim was this MP density isn't needed at the resolution these > lenses have. I'd be shocked if you could see any difference in say a 30MP > version of this same crop camera. You might be hard pressed to see > improvement over a 20MP version. Did I say anywhere this would be a > "unsurmountable problem"? What I posted was this MP density was likely > chosen for marketing reasons rather than any performance concerns. > > Clearly you can use a sensor/film that is higher resolution than the lens > without problems as far as resolution. You're doing a great job, Stephanie. Heck, you browbeat me right out of wasting my $10k with your very first post. For that, I thank you. I didn't want to be bothered by real information anyway. Forget thesse guys. They're too enamored of experience and technical expertise, not worthy of your efforts. Testing! Phhhpt. What's that?
From: David J. Littleboy on 13 Mar 2010 00:52
"MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > You're doing a great job, Stephanie. Heck, you browbeat me right out of > wasting my $10k with your very first post. For that, I thank you. I didn't > want to be bothered by real information anyway. Forget thesse guys. > They're too enamored of experience and technical expertise, not worthy of > your efforts. Testing! Phhhpt. What's that? Really. Alan got into a snarkfest with this person a few days ago, and I thought to drop him a note pointing out he was wasting his time. I need to take my own advice... -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |