Steve Desjardins wrote: >The best thing to do (IMHO) is to just force yourself to think >differently. 20 is a moderate wide angle, 28-35 is normal, 50 is a >short tele, 200 is a longish tele, etc. At least for me, I think of DoF >in a more experiential way and not in terms of meters, etc. Take >advantage of the digital format. Take your favorite lenses, blow off >some test shots of something with pronounced DoF effects (like a fence >end on) and look at them on your computer. You may also find that you >now have different favorite lenses. I now like my FA20-35 more than I >used to. > >The only good reasons to do the 1.5 or 1.6 conversion is to help you >pick out a body to buy or to annoy Bill. > >Steve > I've been shooting stuff happily without thinking about it much and looking at results... My most often used lens on my LX was the 50mm... the great thing is my old wonderful 28mm lens is now quite close to being a 50 and weighs less and has more DOF.
I've started carrying the camera with me again every time I go out. ann > > > >>>>ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/2/2007 9:43 PM >>> >>>> >>>> >Adam Maas wrote: > > > >>ann sanfedele wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>notice how I cleverly avoided mentioning my little bastard camera... >>> >>>but seriously, folks - It took me a few beats too long to realize >>> >>> >that a > > >>>28mm smc Pentax lens on a >>>35 mm digital camera changes it to a less wide lens -- and, I'm >>>guessing, the bit of space between the >>>back of the lens and the camera itself, due to the thickness of the >>>adaptor also contributes to this. >>> >>>Soooo is there a chart somewhere or a formula that says 28 becomes >>>50(?) etc ??? >>>Does the difference/ proportion increase with the physical length of >>> >>> >the > > >>>lens? >>> >>>My 100mm macro seems like a 200 mm lens - so I'm really in pig >>> >>> >heaven.... > > >>>It seems like the 28 mm still has the same depth of field given any >>>given aperature when it is >>>on the KX or the digital camera.... >>> >>>ann the curious >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>The conversion is 1.6 times for the small Canon bodies, so take your >> >> >28, > > >>multiply by 1.6 and you have the equivalent in 35mm terms (Which is >> >> >45mm > > >>or so). And it's all because the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame >> >> >of > > >>film, not because of the space the adaptor takes up. >> >>The conversion applies to all lenses and doesn't change. And it >> >> >doesn't > > >>affect DoF, it's really just like a crop out of the centre of the 35mm >> >> > > > >>frame. >> >>-Adam >> >> >> >> >Adam - good answer good answer! :) just what i wanted to know... >thanks, luv > >ann > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
