On 23 Nov 2004 at 16:18, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hi Rob ... > > Of all the things to be considered, that seems to be the least concern for > me. I've put the 18mm on Juan Buhler's istD and never gave it a thought > that the AOV was different. I did the same with a couple of lenses on John > Francis's istD, and again, never gave it a thought. So, thus far, it's a > complete non-issue. However, if I do get a DSLR, I 'll probably want to get a > lens that'll give me something wider than a 28mm AOV, which is about what the > 18 > provides now. The 14mm might be something to consider. But I don't use the > really wide angle lenses that much in 35mm, so, for the most part, I'm > probably > in good shape. Am I missing something?
I don't think so, we just have a different way of working I guess. I'm often out with a bag-o-lenses, I see the scene and fit a lens to the view, I used to know my lenses well now I fumble. I'd like my 15 and 16mm lenses to provide the AOVs they used to but I know they don't. As an example can you immediately visualize the AOV a 16mm fisheye now provides on the *ist D, I bet you would have a fair idea given a 35mm film body? > When you're ready to give up your Mamiya, let me know. Not any time soon, it's not looking good for the Leicas though. I'm planning a short trip with David Nelson, we will be taking my Mamiyas and it will be his first time using any serious film equipment (his first SLR was the *ist D). So it will be very interesting to hear what he thinks about the limitations of film given that he has a good idea of what the *ist D can do. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
