Holy S---!! Pentax's medium format is only $9400!!!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Cylinder liner....
Next: Electric locomotive...
From: Alfred Molon on 13 Mar 2010 13:13 In article <hngdnr$56d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, paul-@- edgehill.net says... > Alfred Molon wrote: > > In article<4b9aaccd$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, > > dj_nme(a)optusnet.com.au says... > > > >> Why do you really believe that this sort of consumer-level EVF would > >> pass muster on a pro-level MF digital camera? > > > > Why not? It's 800x600x3 and zoomable. > > Here's something more suitable: > http://www.red.com/store/100-0003 Suitable for a Pentax MF camera? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: Michael Benveniste on 13 Mar 2010 13:26 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:33:12 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: > It's a 433, not 645 (44x33mm vs 60x45mm). 645 film wasn't 60x45mm either. Depending on the exact camera, it was typically 56x42mm (or a tad less). > Still I wouldn't complain if someone wants to buy me one :-) Alas, today I just got the quote to repair my home's heating system. So much for a 645D for this year. -- Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Amo conventum instituti. -- Artifex Hannibal
From: Paul Furman on 13 Mar 2010 13:53 Alfred Molon wrote: > paul-@-edgehill.net says... >> Alfred Molon wrote: >>> dj_nme(a)optusnet.com.au says... >>> >>>> Why do you really believe that this sort of consumer-level EVF would >>>> pass muster on a pro-level MF digital camera? >>> >>> Why not? It's 800x600x3 and zoomable. >> >> Here's something more suitable: >> http://www.red.com/store/100-0003 > > Suitable for a Pentax MF camera? If it was compatible, that would be the way to go for hand held use. It would allow you to remove the mirror box to shorten the flange distance and design wide angle lenses easier. For studio/tripod use a small HD LCD monitor would probably work better and cost less... hmm, nope: http://www.red.com/store/100-0005 -less resolution and about the same price. You can actually hook up a laptop for studio use although live view won't feed any more resolution, you get immediate full size 'polaroids' for evaluation.
From: Chris Malcolm on 13 Mar 2010 20:18 In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >>> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> MikeWhy wrote: >>>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.2602e994c867cf0598c25c(a)news.supernews.com... >>>>>> In article <hn93o5$v2c$2(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says... >>>>>>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does >>>>>>> resolve as >>>>>>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything. >>>>>> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP? >>>>> 6 micron pixel pitch is 167 lines/mm. >>>> Which very few if any MF lenses can resolve. >> >>> If you want to get the most out of a lens' resolution, 3 pixels per >>> detail is pretty good. >> >> Every lens I've got, including the 18-250 zoom, can do that in its >> central area under optimum conditions of light, contrast, and >> aperture. The difference is that the best can do it in a wider range >> of conditions, apertures, and image area. > So you are talking about MF lenses? No, APS-C DSLR. But the point I was reaching for is that in recent years lens design and manufacturing technology has improved a lot. If it's necessary it shouldn't be a problem improving MF lenses. -- Chris Malcolm
From: stephe_k on 13 Mar 2010 22:44
David J. Littleboy wrote: > <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 love it when it turns to personal insults, this should prove you are right! > >> 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. > Actually it's pretty sound logic, if you can't see ANY difference between 30MP and 40MP in the camera system with the same size sensor, it IS purely marketing. If you can see a difference between 20MP and 40MP but you can't between 30 and 40 then clearly 30MP is the "threashold" for that system. What you just posted is an over simplified exaggeration. If you actually reread what I wrote, I said MF lenses don't supply the resolution -requiring- this high a pixel density. Stephanie |