Nikon, Canon, and Minolta all made APS SLRs. They, along with Kodak, were the developers of this format. I bought a Canon ELPH camera. I still like the format and always recommend APS to people looking for a film camera.
Jim A. > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:57:38 -0400 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Pentax APS F I L M SLR? > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:58:06 -0400 > > BTW, did pentax ever make a APS FILM SLR? > If so, it must have used K mount lenses, no? > I don't recall one but I wasn't following > pentax very much in the 90's. > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide > > > sorry I meant kA-mount APS size digital sensor camera when I said APS > camera JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide > > > I think that rob's point is that while focal length is nearly the same, > AOV isn't, and hence a comparison of AOV is more pertinant to the > discussion of APS vs FF. Comparing the DA 14mm with the FA 20mm shows > nicely how the APS lens isn't a saving in size and weight (or > cost!) for an equivalent AOV. > You talk about an APS camera. The *ist D is not one of these - it's a > 35mm body with an APS sized sensor in it. An APS camera would have a > smaller lens-film distance, a smaller mount or something like that. The > *ist D is saddled with 35mm's heritage. > > Cheers, > Procrastinating David >
