«

NameHere wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed). net>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) 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.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:05:26 +1100, dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>NameHere wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed). net>,
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) 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.

It would make it too easy for even those unfamiliar with the P&S Troll
to recognize it, which would defeat the purpose of all its
nym-shifting.

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed). net>,
>> (E-Mail Removed) 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.

NameHere <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed). net>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) 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.
>
>Again he displays the stupidity and ignorance of a pretend-photographer

Go away, idiot troll.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:05:26 +1100, dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>NameHere wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed). net>,
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) 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 words that proved Robert Spanjaard was nothing but a
> pretend-photographer troll who doesn't even know how cameras work, as
> as well as him being nothing but a total asshole and idiot ---- again>
>
>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.

Your killfile doesn't seem to work for you even when I use the same name,
why should I bother making your life easier for you? You'll still be a
****ing idiot either way. Nothing will ever change that.

"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> In article <hn93o5$v2c$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?

6 micron pixel pitch is 167 lines/mm.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "(E-Mail Removed)"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) 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.
>
>I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
>would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
>but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my
>Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more
>film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors,
>despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less
>resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure
>that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I
>had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best
>handling camera I've ever owned.

Judging by your photography posted to the SIs that was money well wasted.
Matter of fact, anyone that has submitted photos for the SIs so far have
wasted their money on camera gear, when it could have been put to good use
on something of which any of them might have an inkling of aptitude. We can
rule out photography as a choice judging by everyone's posted entries.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:30:07 -0600, NameHere wrote:

>>>> 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.
>
> Again he displays the stupidity and ignorance of a pretend-photographer
> troll.

True. Too bad it's your own stupidity and ignorance.

> The image relayed to an EVF does not use every photosite on the
> sensor. Think about it, moron. How do they get HD video out of a sensor
> at 30fps? The same way they relay that data to an EVF at lower
> resolutions and even higher frame-rates.

'They' are using a different sensor design. This sensor has a maximum
output of about 7300 lines per second.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0500, Bowser wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "(E-Mail Removed)"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>> 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.
>
> I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
> would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
> but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my Nikon,
> there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more film means
> higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors, despite that the
> glass may, theoritically, be capable of less resolution? I'm guessing
> yes,

You guessed right. Image quality still improves as the sensor resolution
increases, even beyond the optical limits of the system.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:47:29 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:30:07 -0600, NameHere wrote:
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Again he displays the stupidity and ignorance of a pretend-photographer
>> troll.
>
>True. Too bad it's your own stupidity and ignorance.
>
>> The image relayed to an EVF does not use every photosite on the
>> sensor. Think about it, moron. How do they get HD video out of a sensor
>> at 30fps? The same way they relay that data to an EVF at lower
>> resolutions and even higher frame-rates.
>
>'They' are using a different sensor design. This sensor has a maximum
>output of about 7300 lines per second.

That's their problem. There are better sensor designs in cameras that don't
depend on antiquated mechanical mirror and shutter contraptions from last
century. If they had any plans to use an EVF then they would change the
sensor design to accommodate that improvement.

It doesn't change the fact at all that you're nothing but a ****ing idiot
troll that doesn't even own a camera. Proved time and time again.