What it all comes down to is that a 400mm lens is a 400mm lens, whether on a 16mm Minox or an 8x10 field camera. The only difference is the amount of the image circle visible to the light sensitive media.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:52 PM Subject: RE: New Pentax DSLR next year > WRONG > Im tired of explaining it to you. When using a small sensor, > 24x36mm or less, there will be ZERO difference in field of view, > depth of field, apparent magnification etc. etc. between a 645 400mm lens > and a 35mm 400mm lens. > PERIOD. This isnt theory, this is real. > 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 5:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Pentax DSLR next year > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > There IS NOT an "apparent" optical difference if both > > lenses are the same 400mm FL! > > Consumers don't care about physics! The in-camera crop > of the smaller than nominal fullframe sensor yields on > the memory card the same effect as cranking up the enlarger > head to project just the cenrtal area of a regular negative. > That cropped image is what the see and what they get. Again, > DOF, resolution, etc are not part of my point - just that > the end result on the media has a longer reach. > > Bill > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------- > >
