On 9 Mar 2005 at 19:17, John Francis wrote: > Forget this "partial frame" / "full frame" claptrap. > > The camera that would accept the 645/67 lenses would have a sensor > at least as large as the sensor in any K-mount body. > > Not only that - the increased register distance (or, to be strictly > accurate, the increase in distance from the film plane to the rear > nodal point of the lens) means the camera would be less likely to > exhibit chromatic aberration with wide-angle lenses.
It may lead to lower CA in the corners but the fact is that most well designed lens at medium FLs on the *ist D don't exhibit significant CA. >From my prior lens testing of the resolution of P645 lenses I would suggest that using the 645 lens on a sensor the density of the one in the *ist D won't yield optimal results let alone the same old problems of wide angle lens options. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/mfv35lenstest/ > The people who would buy an MF-based DSLR are principally those > people who already have a sizeable investment in Pentax MF glass. > That's the one segment of the pro market where Pentax have been > successful - they need to do something to protect their market. How big do you think that market is compared to the 35mm DSLR market these days? I wonder if they will include an aperture coupler :-) I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative it's just that a move in this direction makes little sense to me though I admit I don't know the actual current market penetration of P645 SLRs (however I rarely see them in equipment list these days). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
