The G1X:
https://wellsfargoadvisors.mworld.com/m/...=587442111
"The G1X (shipping in February at a $799 suggested retail) will be positioned for advanced amateurs and professionals looking for a walk-around point-and-shoot model and offers a large 1.5-inch 14.3-mega-pixel CMOS image sensor and a 4x (28-112mm) optical zoom lens. It is said to have a shallow depth of field and an aperture range of F/2.5-16 affording better low-light capability.
Other new features include 14-bit RAW file support, a new DIGIC 5 image processor with improved low-light support, high-speed burst HQ shooting of up to 6fps/4.5 fps at full resolution, multi-area white balance adjustment, expanded Smart Auto settings, child-weighted face detection system, handheld night scene and HDR mode. It will shoot up to FullHD 1080 video and includes a 720p Movie Digest mode to automatically compile a video log of all still shots."
Careful, don't link to these people, please. Scammers.
Kind regards, Wim
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1325761946' post='14320']
Careful, don't link to these people, please. Scammers.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I took the initial link offline but I think there's no problem:
http://www.whois.net/whois/mworld.com
Thanks, Klaus.
The weird thing is that I manage an account at Wells Fargo in the US, for my other site, and I got a warning from that direction. Hence my concern.
I honestly don't know what is going on here.
Kind regards, Wim
Edit: I see what the problem is: they are really mworld.com, and using the wellsfargo stuff as a subdomain, including the wells fargo logo.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1325774762' post='14341']
Thanks, Klaus.
The weird thing is that I manage an account at Wells Fargo in the US, for my other site, and I got a warning from that direction. Hence my concern.
I honestly don't know what is going on here.
Kind regards, Wim
Edit: I see what the problem is: they are really mworld.com, and using the wellsfargo stuff as a subdomain, including the wells fargo logo.
[/quote]
Well, this is still no problem because mworld.com is registered to Wells Fargo anyway.
I really wonder now why I am getting these warnings....
Kind regards, Wim
Edit: here is the official Wells Fargo's advisory site: [url="https://www.wellsfargoadvisors.com/"]https://www.wellsfargoadvisors.com/[/url]
Mworld is Macroworld: [url="https://www.mworld.com/m/m.w"]https://www.mworld.com/m/m.w[/url]?
Edit 2:
Oh, I just found that that is, or rather was, owned by Wachovia, which was taken over by Wells Fargo very recently (literally weeks ago).
BTW, if you prefer to split off my replies here and in the other topics to a separate one in Just Talk or something, in or to restore flow, please feel free to do so.
If the sensor's size is really 1.5", then the sensor size is very close to the one of 4/3 and µ4/3 sensors.
But it could also be a typo and the sensor's size could be 1/1.5".
[quote name='Mistral75' timestamp='1325806100' post='14365']
If the sensor's size is really 1.5", then the sensor size is very close to the one of 4/3 and µ4/3 sensors.
But it could also be a typo and the sensor's size could be 1/1.5".
[/quote]
I think 1.5 inch can not be right (1.5 inch * 25.4 mm/inch = 38 mm - would be larger than a full frame sensor, no?).
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1325935838' post='14454']
I think 1.5 inch can not be right (1.5 inch * 25.4 mm/inch = 38 mm - would be larger than a full frame sensor, no?).
[/quote]
If they provide just a single figure it'll be about the diagonal size. Full format has ~43mm. APS-C has ~28mm.
Sounds sill unlikely. I'd also bet on a 1/1.5" sensor. Anyway ... nothing to care about I think.
![[Image: wink.gif]](http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
The inch denomination is based on old imaging tubes, and says something about the tube diameter itself. The actual imaging area of such tubes is approximately 2/3 of the diameter, which would make it 1 inch if 1.5 inch was really meant, and this would make it about the same size as a 4/3 sensor.
However, 1.7" and 1.8" are also interchangeably used for 1/1.7"and 1/1.8", so I would expect this to be 1/1.5" indeed. One would think this is really the same as 2/3 ", but working backwards from a 1/1.7" sensor the sensor size would be approximately 8.6 mm X 6.5 mm, IOW, a tad smaller than 2/3 ", which is 8.8 mm X 6.6 mm.
Kind regards, Wim