In a message dated 6/21/2003 7:03:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Well, the first thing is, it does nothing to the focal length of your lens. > > What happens is the sensor is smaller than a 35mm negative so you are only > using the center of the lenses' covering power. To make a print you need > more magnification (sort of like as if you made an 8x10 and then cropped a > 5x7 out of it). This is exactly the same thing that would happen if you used > a lens from the 645 on your 35mm body. > > Where the crap about the lenses changing focal length comes from is the idea > (and it is only an idea) that it is now the equivalent of a lens that only > could cover the smaller image. Back before the 35mm became the standard > camera and there were all kinds of formats in common use no one would have > even thought of this confusing nonsense. Interesting. I do understand tv and John Coyle's explanations, I think. I do sort of understand that focal length also involves the focal plane (sp?) and if the amount of plane is less this changes the apparent length of the lens. > > So what does change is the angle of view of the image, but that change would > be exactly the same if you cropped the image as I mentioned above. But then, > most of the people playing with digital cameras have no idea what angle of > view is. Aha. This whole viewpoint is an interesting take. > As for switching to Canon, WHY? I have been continually impressed by photographs in my photography classes taken with Canons. Now sure, it's probably the photographer in most cases, but maybe not always. Truthfully -- I am not been impressed with my Pentax zooms I have (well, admittedly I only have one currently working, the other needs a CLA.) Which means, I am afraid, although the value of the coated lenses and shooting into the sun is good, I am not sure that value out weights everything else. And, yes, the people where I am impressed with the shots probably have better zooms than I (higher priced). But as far as I know in every case where I have been impressed they *are* using zooms (remember these photography classes have been adult ed, and people are using "consumer grade" cameras, etc.) In other words, I am not even now convinced that Pentax glass is great (sure, if I had a lot of primes, maybe). It is quite possible other brand zooms are better than Pentax zooms (not talking primes here, but zooms). The one thing Pentax really has going for it is the price. And when it comes to the *ist D, ditto, the price. Good quality for the price. And it is possible the zoom I am unimpressed with could use some adjustment/realignment and be better. Since I need the other CLA'ed, I may try that first, a realignment on the other as well. See, the thing is, I will probably always use zooms. I LIKE THEM. Heresy, again. ;-) I like the freedom they give me to play around. I like not having to change lenses all the time, and not having to carry around a big heavy bag with tons of lenses. I find it quite adequate to only have two zooms with me at a time. And the investment in a lot of primes -- I doubt I will ever want to do that. When you factor in film costs, printing costs (which I am now doing myself), that adds on enough additional cost. I can see having better zooms someday, maybe, but not a lot of primes. I really don't have thousands and thousands to sink into photography (yes, I know some primes can be had fairly cheaply, but they are like popcorn, once you get "into" primes, you usually just get more and more -- often just because you need different focal lengths). > > In the same price range the cameras are pretty similar performance wise, the > only reason to change is if the Canon offered some feature you really need > and can not get with Pentax. BEWARE, however, that most of the stuff people > argue about performance wise is a few percentage points difference that > would not be noticeable in normal usage at all. People will nit pick things > to death. To give you an idea, my 50 year old Graphic press camera has a > lens that has maybe 1/2 the performance of a new large format lens, you > would not be able to see that difference in a 16x20 print, though I would > probable have to use a 1/2 grade higher multi-contrast filter to make > equivalent prints (the new lenses are noticeably more > contrasty, in other > words). > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto The percentage point difference thing, that is true. Thanks for reminding me. Very good point. I guess I've been thinking ahead, Canon Digital, which might mean switch brands. Not sure about this but some Canon slrs zooms may work on their digital slrs. OTOH, a Canon SLR is more out of my current price range than the *ist D will be. OTOH, they look pretty d__n good, and maybe someday... I am just not that happy with the view finder on the ZX-5n, that is what it really comes down to. So I know it is not my last and best camera. Not the camera with "my name on it." But I feel there is one out there somewhere that does have my name on it, and if I can find it, my photography will improve. Right now I am somewhat to very frustrated. I'll check out the MZ-S and CLAing my zooms first, when I start finally dealing with my frustrations. Because I would hate to leave the list. Marnie aka Doe Sorry if this reply has been too long, but you asked WHY? So I took that sort of seriously. :-)
