From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:30:27 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says...
>
>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide
>> angle $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
> But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
>
> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror?

Because it uses an optical viewfinder.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Michael Benveniste on
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.

Well, no 35mm-based DSLR system to be exact. The 645D is
only the latest and least expensive of the 40MP cameras based
on medium-format systems.

> But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.

See my (too long) comments below about weight.

I have a Pentax 645n, which of course has a larger mirror than this
camera will have. I've had no problems with mirror slap. When
Michael Reichmann tested a 645nii, he observed no difference between
shots taken with MLU and those taken without it.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml

> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The
> body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really
> suited as a camera to carry around with you.

One of the major advantages of a mirrorless system is a shorter
register distance. Had Pentax decided to go with such a design,
they would gain much less leverage from the existing 645 lenses.

Mamiya had at best mixed success with medium format film rangefinders,
even though it was a fine system. It took me almost a decade, but I
think I now understand why.

At one time, portable 120 and 620 film cameras were commonplace
consumer items. That's in part because the engineering cost equation
of the time favored making enlargements of lesser magnification from
larger negatives or slides. But that started changing over 30 years ago.
After the Canon AE-1 era made 35mm SLR's a mainline consumer
product, about the only time you saw a medium format being used
handheld was at a wedding. The rest of the time, they lived on tripods.
Weddings, of course, were typically a mix of on-tripod and off-tripod
use, but I wouldn't describe it as a "carry around" usage.

I predict a similar usage pattern for these high megapixel cameras.
The reason to _use_ a 40MP camera (as opposed to merely owning one) is
to produce 18x24" or larger prints. That's the same criteria I use
today in deciding to pick up my 645n.

Perhaps I have an old-fashioned mindset, but to me that means taking
the time and effort to plan, compose, and frame such a shot, plus
either waiting for or creating the right light. That in turn means
using a tripod whenever possible. That's especially true if I would
have to rely on an EVF, even with a live view.

Once you've committed to carrying around a tripod, then cost-
benefit ratio of lightweight gear becomes less attractive. It's
no longer a typical "carry around" scenario. So given the
capabilities of today's EVF's, I think Pentax made the right decision
here.

--
Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain


From: Alfred Molon on
In article <dc5fp5p08oqgq9hvkmjbpupts9dd2d0oe0(a)4ax.com>, docnews2011
@gmail.com says...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:30:27 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> >> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> >> $$$ MF glass etc.
> >
> >68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> >40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
>
> Eh? Hasselblad DSLRs have 40 MP or even greater resolution. For
> example, the Hasselblad H4D is available with 40, 50 or 60 MP sensors.

That's medium format.
--

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: Alfred Molon on
In article <hn84hv$kip$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, boat042-
nospam(a)yahoo.com says...

> 5 lbs is a lightweight. ;)

Try carrying 2.5Kg around your neck the whole day...
--

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: Alfred Molon on
In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32123(a)cache70.multikabel.net>,
spamtrap(a)arumes.com says...
> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.

How about an EVF?
--

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