That should be though, not thought... P. J. Alling wrote: > I could be completely wrong, but if I figured it correctly you'd need a > 958mm lens to get the same diagonal AOV on 4x5 that you got with the > 170mm on APS-C. There was a nice aerial photography lens in the 1000mm > range sold on e-bay not long ago. It went relatively cheaply IIRC. (It > would be interesting to carry around with you and mount on a view camera > thought). > > Mark Roberts wrote: > >> William Robb wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: "Mark Roberts" >>> >>> >>> >>>> I expected the Pentax Gallery to reject this one but they confounded me >>>> again... >>>> http://www.robertstech.com/peso.htm >>>> >>>> It's the Conemaugh Dam, about an hour's drive from Pittsburgh, which I >>>> photographed while on a Sierra Club hike. Seems a bit Margaret >>>> Bourke-White influenced to me. >>>> >>>> >>> Why would they reject it? It's a grat photoraph. >>> It would be better if used a Wisner. >>> >>> >> Just the other day, out of the blue, my S.O. asked me, "Do you have a >> large format camera?" >> >> "No" >> >> "Do you want one?" >> >> That got me thinking, hmmmm..... >> >> Now that dam photo was shot at 170mm focal length on an APS-C digital. >> What focal length would give the equivalent FOV on a 4 x 5 Wisner? And >> how much would it cost? (Wait - don't answer that second one. I don't >> want to know.) >> >> >> >> > > >
-- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
