From: stephe_k on 12 Mar 2010 18:07
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
>>>>> 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?
From: stephe_k on 12 Mar 2010 18:16
> <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 :-)
From: bob on 12 Mar 2010 18:16
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:52:31 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!
cheaper than a Hasselhofblad!
From: bob on 12 Mar 2010 18:17
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:54:20 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Mamiya ZD was eventually offered at about that price (<$10k for a
>> kit), but still didn't sell. "Only" 22mp, but that was a couple of
>> years ago now.
>I get so sick of all the MP hype. I've shot with 5MP cameras that image
>quality wise blow away 12MP models but of course people "buy based on
>MP" just like they bought computers based on processor clock speed.
From: Alfred Molon on 12 Mar 2010 18:47
In article <e560e$4b9ab539$546accd9$13071(a)cache90.multikabel.net>,
> You don't even
> understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.
Nope, you are not expressing yourself clearly.
There are full frame transfer and interline transfer CCDs, but you are
talking about "full frame CCD", which is imprecise.
With "full frame" cameras people usually refer to cameras with 24x36mm
sensors. See here
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site