graywolf wrote: >You are getting there, Marie. Take your 24x36mm negative and trim it down to 16x24mm. That is what is happening. There is no actual change in focal length. It is just a crop.
>The reason they started using the 35mm equivalent on P&S digitals is because they all tend to have different size sensors and odd-ball focal length lenses. It was just a convinence to make it easier to compair one camera to another. Somehow folks start thinking it was more than that, and all of a sudden there are lots of experts pondificating about it. Many of the things everyone KNOWS about photography came about the same way. >So no, your 200mm lens does not magically become a 300mm lens. It is just a 200mm lens with a smaller negative. I truly do understand that now, after reading this list. Actually, I understood it about a month ago (or longer). That is not the issue now. What do I see through the viewfinder? If I am using a 200m lens and the "crop" will make it look like 350mm -- am I seeing 200mm through the viewfinder or 350mm? And if I am seeing 200mm, then as someone mentioned previously, are there crop lines? Actually, it seems to me that Pentax wouldn't be stupid enough not to have the viewfinder match the image that will result. And I can't remember reading or hearing of this discrepancy in any DSLRs reviews. So, yes, I think a lot of answers in this thread have been confusing because some people really haven't know what they were talking about. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Also William Robb said the 50mm looked "close," ergo that would not be a 50mm but an 75 or 80 or 85mm or something.
