From: Bruce on
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:56:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.


It's a DSLR.

You said "no DSLR comes close". You were wrong.

From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

> 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?

It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
That would be a very slow EVF.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: stephe_k on
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.

A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?

B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.

From: dj_nme on
NameHere wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>> It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
>> That would be a very slow EVF.
>
<snip rant>

I'm not sure why NameHere doesn't just write "killfile me" in the first
line of his reply and save every-one the trouble.
From: dj_nme on
Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
> That would be a very slow EVF.

Even if it was a 60fps EVF, at this price-point I would be very
surprised if a 640x480 EVF could "cut the mustard".
If it were possible to stream an HD video signal from this sensor to an
HD EVF, then it might (maybe) be worth it.

Then it would be necessary to convince users to re-buy all of their
favoured FL lenses, assuming that the use of an EVF (and external HD
video stream) was taken full advantage of to shrink the mount to sensor
distance and make the camera body a lot smaller.