For those still hoping for a 645D

graywolf gray_wolf at charter.net
Wed Dec 5 13:39:12 EST 2007


No Kodak was saying 14mp back when I bought my Nikon Coolpix 100 (According to 
the receipt I ran across the other day that was in early 1998). Now their sales 
literature may have said something different but that was the figure that I got 
from their website back then. IIRC, that was in comparison to their 100 speed 
negative film.

Hey, remember, I was the first pro-digital guy on this list. That was back when 
all you folks were saying no one would pay that much for a camera, and I was 
saying if it makes you money it is cheap. Of course I still don't have a DSLR, 
but then I am not making money with my cameras anymore either.

Graywolf
Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Blog:    http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

P. J. Alling wrote:
> Actually Kodak's sales literature, (propaganda), originally said it was 
> 6mp, oh yes and wonder of wonders their high end photo, 
> ("professional"), CD supplied 6mp.  Funny how it became 14mp when they 
> offered products with higher resolutions...
> 
> (and they wonder why no one trusts them...)
> 
> graywolf wrote:
>> Things change.
>>
>> I can remember when all a photojournalist needed was a couple of Leica bodies 
>> and 3 lenses (35,50,90). Before my time he could get by with a couple of 
>> Rolleifexs; and before that all he needed was a Speed Graphic with one lens.
>>
>> There was quite a bit of argument about what resolution was equal to 35mm film. 
>> I (and Kodak) always said 14 megapixels. The fact is that for most publication 
>> work about 5mp seems to be all that is really needed.
>>
>> Kind of to put things in perspective, how many remember when they were saying 
>> that memory density was about as high as it could go? That was back in the days 
>> of 64mb memory modules. These days you can get a 4gb flash card about the size 
>> of your thumbnail.
>>
>> As I said, things change.
>>
>>
>> Graywolf
>> Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com
>> Blog:    http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/
>>
>> Steve Desjardins wrote:
>>   
>>> Funny.  I remember about 6 years ago when people claimed that we would
>>> need 24 MP to equal 35 mm film.  If anyone had actually described
>>> today's situation at that time few would have believed them.  Besides, I
>>> could never affros that Canon.  Or better, I could never justify paying
>>> that much.
>>>
>>> Steven Desjardins
>>> Department of Chemistry
>>> Washington and Lee University
>>> Lexington, VA 24450
>>> (540) 458-8873
>>> FAX: (540) 458-8878
>>> desjardins at wlu.edu
>>>
>>>     
>>>>>> "Adam Maas" <adam at mawz.ca> 12/5/2007 12:03 AM >>>
>>>>>>           
>>> I dunno about that. The 1DsmIII is pushing the limits of what 35mm
>>> glass is capable of. While a ~22MP 645D wouldn't necessarily compete
>>> well (Although the Mamiya ZD back is selling every unit Mamiya can
>>> push out, at a similar cost to the 1DsmIII) a higher-rez unit might
>>> well be competetive, and there's a lot more resolution headroom with
>>> good MF glass.
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>> On 12/4/07, P. J. Alling <webster26 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>     
>>>> An interesting user review of the new Canon 1Ds MkIII, which confirms
>>>>       
>>> my
>>>     
>>>> feeling that the 645D was swimming upstream without the spawning
>>>> possibilities...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mada-iiis.shtml 
>>>>
>>>> I would consider this very bad news for an eventual 645D if it were
>>>>       
>>> ever
>>>     
>>>> introduced.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence
>>>>       
>>> is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University
>>> football team.
>>>     
>>>>         -- P. J. O'Roarke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>> PDML at pdml.net 
>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>>>>       
>>> and follow the directions.
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>   
> 
> 




More information about the PDML mailing list