That's what I've been saying!!! Bill
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year > The FOV would be the same for both 400mm lenses > when used on the same 24x36 sensor. You seem to > think that a 645 400mm lens is a different magnification > from a 35mm 400mm lens when both are used on the > same small 24x36 sensor. The magnification and FOV from > BOTH 400mm lenses would be the same when using the same > 24x36 sensor in both cases. Thus using the 400mm > 645 lens makes no sense at all with a 24x36 sensor > as compared to a 35mm 400mm lens which would be smaller, > lighter, cheaper, and probably even sharper for other > reasons to boot. > JCO > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Pentax DSLR next year > > > The FOV would be the equivalent of a 600mm on a 24x36 sensor. > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:08 PM > Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year > > > > Your talking something different here. > > The inital suggestion was that a 400mm 645 > > lens would be much different than a 400mm 35mm format > > lens ON THE SAME 24x36 DSLR CAMERA! Not true. > > jco > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:57 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: New Pentax DSLR next year > > > > > > Granted, but you would have less of the image circle visible on a 24x36 > > sensor than on 645 film. IOW, if your main subject is two inches high, it > > will be two inches high on both formats, but the entire subject would be > > visible on 645 film and less than 1/2 of it on 35mm (assuming landscape > > orientation). > > > > Bill > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:44 PM > > Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year > > > > > > > 400mm is 400mm no matter what sensor > > > or film format. a 400mm 645 lens wont look > > > any different than a 400mm 35mm format lens on > > > THE SAME 24x36 dslr. There would be no > > > logical reason to use a 645 400m lens > > > on a 24x36 dslr vs. a 35mm (24x36) format > > > 400mm lens on a 24x36 dslr. There IS NOT > > > an "apparent" optical difference if both > > > lenses are the same 400mm FL! > > > > > > jco > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bill D. Casselberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:47 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: New Pentax DSLR next year > > > > > > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > > > > > huh? a 400mm lens designed for 645 isnt going > > > > to give any bigger image magnification than a > > > > 400mm designed for 24x36 but it would be larger > > > > and heavier and costlier. No way Jose! > > > > > > yeah, sure - by straight optical physics > > > > > > but the actual effect is a seemingly longer reach w/ > > > a given focal length on a smaller "film gate" exactly > > > like everyone is so happy w/ when putting a tele onto > > > their StarKist w/ its less than 24x36 sensor. The end > > > result (granted, it is merely a *cropping factor* like > > > on would get w/ an enlarger) is an apparently longer > > > lens - period - ... and that's all that matters. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > > > > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
