William Curwen wrote > For example, a 300mm standard lens on a 10x8in camera has the same depth of > field as a 300mmm telephoto lens on a 35mm camera.
But... To get the same field of view on a digicam as i do on 35mm, I have to use wider angle lenses... (which have greater field of view) >Digicam lenses have a > minimum aperture of around f8/11 due the small circular field of > illumination necessary to cover a typically small sensor. Any smaller and > all manner of lens abberations begin to creep in. But if I look at the middle portion of a 35mm tranny shot at f22 (approximating to the area covered by the small sensor), I do not see all manner of lens abberations? So I can't see why couldn't I use f22 on a digicam? Or is it that compact digicams have crap lenses placed very close to the 'film' plane, thus exacerbating abberations? I guess that I should find out whether (say) a 17mm lens at f8 (field of view x, min aperture) has more or less d.o.f than a 28mm lens at f22 (min aperture for 35mm slr at same field of view) (I would imagine less). Giles Stokoe photographer/photojournalist. See some images at http://www.stokoe.co.uk > From: "william.curwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:22:57 +0000 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [PRODIG] digital focal lengths > > Focal length dictates the depth of field that a lens can achieve. > > > Hope this helps > > William Curwen > > =============================================================== > GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
