IIRC, the image size would be the same regardless of format. It's just that the image would take up more of the frame on a smaller format and less of the frame on a larger format.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Lunar eclipse tonight > Hi, > > Sunday, November 9, 2003, 9:11:34 PM, you wrote: > > > With full frame 35mm, even a 1000mm lens wont fill the frame so > > 300mm is definately too short for lunar photography. > > JCO > > here is a table from the Cambridge Eclipse Photography Guide which > gives the size of the sun's or moon's disk in millimetres according to > the focal length used on a 35mm camera: > > Focal Image > Length Size > > 28 0.25 > 50 0.45 > 100 0.91 > 200 1.8 > 300 2.7 > 400 3.6 > 500 4.5 > 600 5.4 > 1000 9.1 > 2000 18.2 > > bearing in mind that 135 film is 24x36mm, even with a 2000mm lens you > only fill 3/4 of the frame. > > All the same, people have been showing some very good photos of it. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
