Probably no worse than a 350D with the 18-55 kit lens. On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 04:02:42PM -0600, Tom C wrote: > I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L > glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a > runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. > > > Tom C. > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or > numbered." > > > >From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards > >Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 > > > >But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old > >lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. > > > >What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. > > > >-Aaron > > > >-- > >http://aaronreynolds.ca > >http://battersbox.ca > >http://hardballtimes.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards > >Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm > >Size: 1K > >To: [email protected] > > > >The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) > > > >The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of > >a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor > >being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use > >the lenses as intended. > > > >It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, > >it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. > >Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with > >cheap APS-C bodies is another question. > > > > > >Tom C. > > > >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or > >numbered." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > >Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards > > >Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 > > > > > >That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. > > > > > >Bob W wrote: > > > > > > >That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take > > > >over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a > > > >35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of > > > >the sensor is irrelevant on its own. > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Cheers, > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer > > > >>little & less quality than bigger & better quality. > > > >>I expect this to continue... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > > > > >Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern > >America's > > >favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. > >Cats > > >are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely > >dependent > > >on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything > > >useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it > > > > > >P. J. O'Rourke > > > > > > > > >-- > > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >[email protected] > > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >[email protected] > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >[email protected] > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
