<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[Umm, so I was thinking, How big of a file would that raw data file be if you had 24 bit color. it is just over 758 MB. I am real glad we have large flash cards around nowadays.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[robogeek]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 8th 2007 9:55PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[really?  a raw file in 16 bit color would be about 25MB, assuming it has the same resolution as the Phase One P30]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[eric f.]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 9th 2007 10:02AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[I feel inadequate...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 8th 2007 10:09PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[It's sexy :)]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michal G]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 8th 2007 10:09PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[^ Pentax Fanboy]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bizzle]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 9th 2007 9:11AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[Naw, he just can't afford the Hasselblad]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 10th 2007 12:44PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Pentax's 645 Digital is real, too good for us]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/08/pentaxs-645-digital-is-real-too-good-for-us/</guid><description><![CDATA[I have been a devoted Pentax user since 1978. I currenly own ZX 5N, K-1000, 645N, and ist*D. I have been well pleased with Pentax pricing, but I am concerned that the 645D will be overpriced. If it cost more that $5,000.00 for the body I will not buy it. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Metts]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 10th 2007 6:00PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
