Wow! Hey if we use 8x10 we can double them. Then my 80-200 is a 640 to 1600 zoom, and your 50 is a 600mm. Do you have any idea what a 640-1600/f2.8 zoom for an 8x10 would cost? I sure saved a bunch on that one.
Only, (frown) somehow my contacts don't look like they came from an 8x10.
--
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Camera shake (was The A-2XS and A 400/5.6)
On 1 Mar 2004 at 13:13, William Robb wrote:
I have never said anything about camera shake factors with the smaller format, I just rail at the concept that a 50mm lens is
really
a75mm lens as soon as it gets stuck onto the istD
I think the problem here is that I (and I suspect many other
photogs) just care
about AOV and the common expression of AOV is via 35mm FL hence the
constant
referral back to this reference regardless of format.
I think, just to ensure absolute clarity, I will refer to all focal lengths as they work on the 4x5 format, since that is as good a reference standard as anything. At least me, Rittenhouse and Hodgson will have a clue. Don't know about the rest of you lot though.
William Robb
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
