On Jun 29, 2005, at 8:30 AM, William Robb wrote:
I was refering to the 70-210. At the 200mm is makes about 300mm
equivallent (325,5mm to be exact).
AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
It is somewhat difficult to figure out what people are referring to
sometimes. But what are you AAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHing about, Bill?
From: Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brother William is eternally dismayed at how most folks discuss "crop
factor" in terms of focal length. When Thibouille states "200mm is
makes
about 300mm equivallent", William wants to reach through his
computer and
throttle Thibouille's neck...
Thibouille, we all know that what you really meant to say was that
a 200mm
lens is still a 200mm lens regardless of the size of the sensitized
material
you stick it in front of.
From: Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If it must be spelled out for you, Mr. Robb has issues with the way
some
people refer to focal lengths as "equivalent to ##mm on the *ist D(s)"
focal length is focal length is focal length regardless of format.
Thank you both for the enlightenment. Much as I love the PDML banter,
I do not often keep notes on individual subscribers' pet dyspepsia.
I find that people's expression of these field of view issues varies
a lot, I try to read through the gobbledygook that gets written and
understand what they mean. Thibouille's statement, to me, was
referring to the field of view of the FA135/2.8 lens on the D/DS
format, which was the lens mentioned in the quote he used. Turns out
he was referring to the 200mm focal length instead.
I dislike the whole "crop factor" stuff myself as well. It's popular
as so many of the DSLR purchasers, coming from 35mm SLR systems,
haven't yet let go of their set conceptions of focal length with
regards to field of view and depth of field. I wish there was a
better way to express the differences beyond "The focal length you're
using on a D/DS gives you the field of view of a lens with 1.53x
focal length longer fitted to a 35mm film SLR", etc.
Godfrey
