On 28/3/06, Ken Durling, discombobulated, unleashed: >OK, another DSLR question: it's commonly discussed how with 1.6 FOV >factor cameras you have to go to a much wider angle lens to get the >equivalent FOV of 35mm. So far so good, for FOV, but what about >spatial distortion? Does using say a 15mm lens to get a 24mm FOV >still produce the wider angle lines of convergence of the 15mm and >its accompanying distortion? Maybe I've just missed this aspect >being discussed, or perhaps this is just an assumed part of the w/a >problem with these cameras? Feel free to point me to articles, etc...
The important thing to remember with lenses is that nothing changes with regard to focal length. A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens. What you will see when looking down the viewfinder of a DSLR with a smaller sensor than 36X24mm is a cropped part of the image. You will be 'zoomed in' slightly, so that you are not seeing the edges (not such a bad thing with some lenses) but any other effects with regard to a particular lens - such as barrel distortion - will still be there, just as it would if mounted on a 1Ds, 5D, or any film camera. Try and think of it this way. On a medium format camera, a 'normal' lens (normal lens for sake of argument here giving a view similar to that of the human eye) would be about 80mm. On 35mm film cameras a 'normal' lens would be about 50mm. On a DSLR with a crop factor of 1.6, a 'normal' lens would be about 31mm. This web page may be of some use: <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr- mag.shtml> HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
