Holy S---!! Pentax's medium format is only $9400!!!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Cylinder liner....
Next: Electric locomotive...
From: Michael Benveniste on 12 Mar 2010 10:55 "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: >> The 45mm lens is a bit too wide for >> the role (35mm equivalent of a 36mm lens), and the 75mm a bit long. > > The 45mm would be fine here as a normal lens. I use 65mm on 6x7 and 40mm > on 24x36. For The Love Of Dog, Montresor! I beg you, don't open up that cask of worms. While I prefer a slightly wider "normal" lens as well, even today the ghost of Oskar Barnack haunts the industry. I can't see Pentax/Hoya bucking that "Conventional Wisdom." While I though about exchanging my 45mm f/2.8 for an autofocus model, I never got around to it. Instead, I replaced the standard focus screen with a split-prism one. Should I decide to buy a 645D, I'll regret that decision. -- Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Amo conventum instituti. -- Artifex Hannibal
From: LOL! on 12 Mar 2010 12:38 On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >My point is that you're mistaken in thinking there is a threshold. At >one extreme of a very good lens and a small resolution sensor all the >image resolution comes from the sensor. At the other extreme of a very >large MP sensor and a poor lens all the resolution comes from the >lens. There's a point in the middle where the contributions of sensor >and lens to image resolution are equal. At that point improving lens >resolution is subject to ever diminishing returns because the sensor >exerts an increasingly larger effect on the combined resolution. Vice >versa for increasing sensor resolution. > >So around what is usually taken to be the "threshold" there is an area >of wiggle room where although you get diminishing returns from >improving either lens or sensor resolution there still are returns. >If it can be done cheaply enough they're worth pursuing. And >because it's the square root of MP which is proportional to linear >resolution that gives quite a large amount of MP wiggle room around >the so-called "threshold". > >What is currently considered the threshold is also in part dependent >on costs. When increasing MP keep diminishing in their contribution to >resolution (and other aspects of image quality) there comes a point >where it's simply not worth the money to push MP any higher even >though there are still some gains to be made. But as higher resolution >sensors get cheaper that point shifts. > >So yesterday's MP "threshold" for APS-C, or for 35mm full frame, or >MF, will tend to keep drifting up as technology improves because >there's still some extra image quality to be got. Also sensor >technology in terms of noise, of exposure bleeding, and so on, keeps >improving. So some of the increasing MPs at each format is actually >delivering improved quality. Not all of it is pure marketing nonsense. > >Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish >at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent >mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with >respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably >Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words. TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head tech-head uselessness. I have yet to see any of you address the properties of image content itself. Where a misty scene can be captured with far less pixels than one defined by myriad and complex sharp edges. Even then, the content will determine the amount of pixels needed to capture that detail. An image of bold geographic man-made patterns will vary in its pixel needs greatly compared to a natural scene of complex foliage. But you go ahead. Keep on living in that theoretical tiny space between your mental-masturbation ears and relaying its ignorant findings to those that live in and photograph the real world. The humor you provide seems limitless. LOL!
From: LOL! on 12 Mar 2010 12:42 On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >My point is that you're mistaken in thinking there is a threshold. At >one extreme of a very good lens and a small resolution sensor all the >image resolution comes from the sensor. At the other extreme of a very >large MP sensor and a poor lens all the resolution comes from the >lens. There's a point in the middle where the contributions of sensor >and lens to image resolution are equal. At that point improving lens >resolution is subject to ever diminishing returns because the sensor >exerts an increasingly larger effect on the combined resolution. Vice >versa for increasing sensor resolution. > >So around what is usually taken to be the "threshold" there is an area >of wiggle room where although you get diminishing returns from >improving either lens or sensor resolution there still are returns. >If it can be done cheaply enough they're worth pursuing. And >because it's the square root of MP which is proportional to linear >resolution that gives quite a large amount of MP wiggle room around >the so-called "threshold". > >What is currently considered the threshold is also in part dependent >on costs. When increasing MP keep diminishing in their contribution to >resolution (and other aspects of image quality) there comes a point >where it's simply not worth the money to push MP any higher even >though there are still some gains to be made. But as higher resolution >sensors get cheaper that point shifts. > >So yesterday's MP "threshold" for APS-C, or for 35mm full frame, or >MF, will tend to keep drifting up as technology improves because >there's still some extra image quality to be got. Also sensor >technology in terms of noise, of exposure bleeding, and so on, keeps >improving. So some of the increasing MPs at each format is actually >delivering improved quality. Not all of it is pure marketing nonsense. > >Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish >at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent >mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with >respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably >Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words. TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head tech-head uselessness. I have yet to see any of you address the properties of image content itself. Where a misty scene can be captured with far less pixels than one defined by myriad and complex sharp edges. Even then, the content will determine the amount of pixels needed to capture that detail. An image of bold geometric man-made patterns will vary in its pixel needs greatly compared to a natural scene of complex foliage. But you go ahead. Keep on living in that theoretical tiny space between your mental-masturbation ears and relaying its ignorant findings to those that live in and photograph the real world. The humor you provide seems limitless. LOL!
From: Robert Spanjaard on 12 Mar 2010 13:24 On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:28:14 -0600, NameHere wrote: >>>> Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image >>>> quality to be an improvement? >>> >>> I don't think they need to degrade image quality to provide live view. >>> There are so many high end DSLRs around with live view. >> >>And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full >>frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality? > > Give it a rest, you fuckingly ignorant troll. You were revealed to be > the know-nothing troll that you are just from your assumption that all > large sensors must be slow for an EVF display. As I never posted such an assumption, the only thing being revealed here is your stupidity. Again. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: DanP on 12 Mar 2010 13:39
On Mar 12, 5:38 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish > >at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent > >mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with > >respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably > >Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words. > > TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head > tech-head uselessness. See some numbers here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/341%7C0/(appareil2)/247%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon DanP |