On 7/29/2010 8:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: "paul stenquist"
Subject: Re: Right Up William's Street
They're also kind of useless. You still have only a small sensor to
fill. There are better ways of doing that.
They are little more than an expensive curiosity. Mine cost me a scrap
of plywood' the back of a broken lens, some black masking tape an an
hour.
It could have been worse.
The depth of the camera body limits the movements substantially (like
almost completely, IIRC).
Add to that, anything you can do with a view camera movement wise you
can emulate in Photoshop, and a small sensor camera has so much
inherent DOF that the lost tilts are moot.
Useless is an understatement, but their existence in the marketplace
shows that P.T. Barnum was correct.
William Robb
I was in Bridgeport the other day, Barnum's home town proves that every
day. No need for special equipment.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
