Holy S---!! Pentax's medium format is only $9400!!!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Cylinder liner....
Next: Electric locomotive...
From: stephe_k on 13 Mar 2010 22:46 Chris Malcolm wrote: > In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Chris Malcolm wrote: > >> 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. > But if that is the case, then this camera body is vaporware until they make better optics was my point. No doubt at some price they could make better optics. Stephanie
From: Bruce on 14 Mar 2010 06:30 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:46:36 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Chris Malcolm wrote: > >> >>> 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. >> > >But if that is the case, then this camera body is vaporware until they >make better optics was my point. No doubt at some price they could make >better optics. But they already have made a better lens - there is a new 55mm standard lens for the 645D. It is advertised as "the first of a new series": http://www.pentax.jp/english/news/2010/201007.html
From: Bowser on 14 Mar 2010 12:21
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:16:30 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Bowser wrote: >> >> >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> My point was that pixel pitch below a certain level with most MF glass >>> is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a >>> threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs. >>> It's sorta like thinking how using techpan might be useful with 35mm >>> film camera with really good glass, it's overkill for a 120 film >>> camera and no way could you ever use the resolution the film is >>> capable of with MF lenses. >> >> Here again, my experience with a special B&W file in the Hassy seems to >> indicate otherwise. > >I'd agree most blad optics don't fit this statement. But this isn't a >blad camera :-) > >Stephanie No, but the Pentax optics I used, the manual focus 645 lenses were excellent. Optically they were wonderful, and mechanically they were very rugged. The two Pentax 645 zooms I had were dreadful, though. Nice useful ranges, but the clarity just wasn't there, and using those zooms on this new digital body might disappoint. Hell, they *will* disappoint! Anyway, I don't have it any more, and have no plans to purchase any gear beyond the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS next week. For me, the 5D II is all I need, and changing gear will not improve my photos, that's for certain... |