Paul
On Nov 23, 2004, at 11:13 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
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
