That's true, if by "aperture" you mean "diameter". It's not true if you shoot at the same f-stop.
My 200mm/f2.8, shot at full aperture on my *ist-D gives me the same angle-of-view and depth-of-field as a 300mm/f4 on my MZ-S, not that of a 300/f2.8 Paul Stenquist mused: > > If you shoot at the same aperture and you have the same angle of view, > the depth of field will be the same as well. > Paul > On Jan 3, 2005, at 2:44 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > Paul, you're right, except you are not addressing the DOF issue. > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 2. januar 2005 23:43 > > Til: [email protected] > > Emne: Re: Sensor-Size-Conversion-Factor-Confused... HELP > > > > > > We're making this way too complicated. If you shoot a portrait with a > > 50mm > > lens on an *ist D, your model will look the same as she would with a > > 75mm > > lens on a 35mm film camera. You're the same distance away. The field > > of view > > is the same. The lens resolves the image onto the film. The > > perspective is > > the same. Her nose won't look any bigger than it would with the 75mm > > lens > > and a 35mm film camera. It doesn't require a complicated expalanation. > > Paul > > > > > >>> Let's see if I can explain this simply. > >> > >> Heck I'll have a go as well: > >> > >> Hibble bibble bobble bibble bop. Gubble gobble gabble gip. Mibble > >> mobblemabble mup. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Nope, didn't work at all. > >> > >> I withdraw my attempt. > >> > >> > >> *hic* > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Cotty > >> > >> > >> ___/\__ > >> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > >> ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > >> _____________________________ > >> > >> > > > > > > >
