I understand... I sent this as a request to Rob, really, as I'd like
to see what the difference might be between the DA14 and one of the
older 15/16mm lenses.
The DA14 is designed to cover the D/DS format, but this means that it
should net a 24x24 mm coverage on 35mm film. The biggest issue is
that on cameras that do not have body control of aperture, it will be
a 14mm f/22 lens. Considering that my old Contax G2 + Hologon 16 +
gradiant ND filter was f/16, one stop less isn't so bad. I might give
it a go on the MX to see what it does.
I think I can make a mask that can be applied in Photoshop to make it
look like the image was made with a Hasselblad 903SWC... ;-)
Godfrey
On Jul 13, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
No, not at all. I just wanted to see the FOV and distortion of a
simple
shot made with the 16/2.8 that might be typical of what I'd make. I've
explained to dave Brooks why the pic from the 16/2.8 is of
interest. Add
to that, that certainly for the next year or so, I'd probably not
want to
buy a new lens that was designed only for digital use, as, I
believe, the
14mm is.
shel
Godfrey wrote:
Not what you requested, Shel ... but in response to Rob's comment
about the
DA14:
This is a typical hand-held photo taken with the DA14 using the
*ist DS:
(warning: Full resolution, 500 Mbyte file)
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/castle-door-3038.jpg
image data:
ISO 200 @ f/4 @ 1/100 sec, Av mode, Pattern AF & AE
-captured in RAW
-converted with ACR 3.1 set to As Shot defaults, 8bit RGB output into
Photoshop
- 1 pass with PSCS2 Smart Sharpen @ 50%, 1.4 pixel setting
- Converted to sRGB colorspace
- JPEG compression at #4 for file output, tagged with sRGB profile
Shel
