I thought in equivalent field of view when I first moved to digital.
Now after tens of thousands of digital photos, I know what the FOV of
a given lens is on my camera. The 35mm FOVs never cross my mind. My
16-50 is a 16-50. Period. At one end it's nice for landscapes and my
VTs. At the other end, it's a slightly wide portrait lens. Equivalents
are for the newbies.
Paul
On Jan 16, 2009, at 11:39 AM, frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joseph McAllister
<[email protected]> wrote:
I solved this problem for myself by NOT using words at all.
<snip>
I solved the problem, too. I put a lens on my camera. I look through
the viewfinder. What I see in the viewfinder mostly corresponds with
what's going to show up on the picture.
Okay, seriously, I guess I just don't need to know exact
equivalencies. A 16mm will be wider than a 24mm on all bodies -
that's about all I need to know. After nearly a couple of years, I
have a pretty good idea what a lens of a given focal length will do on
film on my *istD. Exact numbers don't interest me so much...
;-)
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
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.
--
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.
