AW: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
And still it is true that a 35mm on an APS sized sensor is not a 50mm but the same 35mm with a too narrow lens shade on. All this is very true - no need to proove it again - but it is of not much help to anybody. It is the field of view that is of primary interest to most people when chosing a lens. What frame do I get? is the question that is asked. And the correct answer (in the case of an APS sized sensor) is You will get what you expect from a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera. As it is a fact that we usually 'think' in focal lengths (and not in format/FOV values) the '35mm equivalent' can serve wonderfully as a rule of thumb with all the various sensor sizes. I don't see any other way and the industry has more or less agreed on this. I also have a small digital PS and I don't even KNOW the exact focal length off hand, but it yields frames at around a 35-70mm equivalent... If we want to be of any help to people asking, then we should point out WHAT differences there are (in real world terms) that make the 35 on the *ist D act differently from a 50 on the ME Super. As for Depth of field it would be worth pointing out that you loose about one stop compared to what is printed on the lens (engraved ... on some lenses). Or, in other words, you get one stop wider DOF compared to using a 50mm on a ME super. But that's about all, isn't it? Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Stan Halpin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Dezember 2003 06:25 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? on 12/24/03 9:18 AM, graywolf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum? I figure that 127 is the equivalent of a 31mm on 135 camera. And the 105 is the equivalent of a 46mm. I have always found it strange that people do this stuff, because one works differently in different formats, one tends to use much closer points of view with a large format camera and thus shorter relative focal length lenses. Furthermore prior to the 70's when there was a 35mm explosion and it became the norm no one hardly thought in those terms. As Shel says it seems to be a dumbing down factor (I am ignorant of anything but 35mm make it understandable to me without my having to think)... Has anyone here ever had to learn a new language? You can do it two ways (to simplify the analogy); full immersion within a setting where nobody speaks your current language(s), or, a setting where you learn the new vocabulary and rules of grammer by reference to your current language(s). Dumbness nor smartness have anything to do with it, they are both perfectly good approaches to learning languages. The second approach is better for most people most of the time, though it depends on how thoroughly you need to become fluently how soon. Anyone here ever try to switch from one camera format to another? Same deal. You can go total immersion with no reference to what you know or you can work from what you know already. The latter approach will work best for most people most of the time. I am pleased that manufacturers are recognizing this point, they too seldom ignore the way real people learn new things. In other words, Shel is wrong, as is Cotty and graywolf, when asserting that there is something wrong about saying a 20mm is like a 35mm 30mm lens or saying that a 75mm 645 lens is like a 35mm 50mm lens. Using a common point of reference which the vast majority of photographers know does no harm to any but those with feet problem or other problems that I won't go into on Christmas Eve... Happy holidays! A fresh snowfall here in central Michigan today, a beautiful cardinal obligingly posing in a nearby bush, my 300mm lens giving me the FOV of a 450mm when taking a picture of said cardinal with my ist-D, all is good in the world. Stan
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Thomas wrote: if you think large chips are going to replace medium-format, why then not make a body in MF-style (cubic body with perhaps interchangeable backs for digi 35mm-film, interchangeable viewfinders like prism and waistlevel of course) that takes 35mm lenses? There once was the Rollei 3003 in exactly that style...well, that would be a fantastic digital one! I doubt many want a kind of every format in one body camera. People who buy digital probably want digital and already have a perfectly good 35mm camera. Such a solution is expensive and few are willing to pay for it. In addition compromises have to be made. The box design of 6X6 and 645 cameras is dictated by the film transport. Theres not much point in keeping this design if theres no film transport present. A Pentax 645 based DSLR could be made at the same size, if not smaller, and same shape as a Canon D10. Theres no point with a large box anymore. Of course film cameras that take digital backs exist and more will come but they only owe their present to the fact that they are based on cameras that sell in so small numbers to start with that separate digital platforms aren't viable. As soon (if ever) MF sized sensors are cheap enough to warrant something resembling volume sales, you'll see separate digital MF based cameras that have nothing in common with the film siblings except for lens mounts. Pål
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Mark wrote: Cost reduction will come from three factors (in increasing order of significance): Improvement in yield Economies of scale New, less expensive, manufacturing processes Canon has been hammering away on #3 and their success has helped achieve #2. Everyone else is lagging behind for now. Just wait until others begin to catch up. We ain't seen nuthin' yet. It is interesting that yield rate was very low for the first years of CD manufacturing. It was said that only the most popular artist could ever be released on CD. The opposite happened. Production methods improved wastly with the reult that yield rate went up and cost down. Nowadays even the most obscure artists are available on CD. Yes, even albums that originally sold 80 samples 30 years ago are being reissued on CD. Improvement in manufacturing methods is amost certain to happen. Pål
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Steve wrote: The APS sensor may survive for the same reason 35 mm took off over MF, i.e., it was smaller, cheaper, and good enough. It is pretty clear that the smaller sensor are here to stay for the foreseeable future effectively defining a new standard and format. Pål
RE: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Was he a pediatrician or a pediatrist? Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:01 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? On 23/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my *ist D. At the risk of being pendantic, how can a 35mm lens be anything other than a 35mm lens, great or otherwise? I was pedantic once, but doctor recommended some shoes that fit properly Cheers, Cotty
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format. Herb - Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
This one time, at band camp, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. I guess the APS size will provide a cheap alternative, and if it can do the job of current 35mm, all the better. The Medium Format digital backs, such as this offering by Fuji http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_476108product=43026002 are still a long way off. So I guess there is plenty of time to sell lenses specifically for the APS size sensor. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Hello, if you think large chips are going to replace medium-format, why then not make a body in MF-style (cubic body with perhaps interchangeable backs for digi 35mm-film, interchangeable viewfinders like prism and waistlevel of course) that takes 35mm lenses? There once was the Rollei 3003 in exactly that style...well, that would be a fantastic digital one! Have a nice christmas time! Thomas Kevin Waterson schrieb: This one time, at band camp, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. I guess the APS size will provide a cheap alternative, and if it can do the job of current 35mm, all the better. The Medium Format digital backs, such as this offering by Fuji http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_476108product=43026002 are still a long way off. So I guess there is plenty of time to sell lenses specifically for the APS size sensor. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is equivalent to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask What's that lens in 35mm terms? Ummm... pretty much every time I show a large or medium format camera to a customer. :) I've been playing with 35mm cameras for a long time. Maybe after I've used my 67 for long enough with enough different lenses, I won't need to translate angle of coverage into 35mm terms. But that's a long way in the future. Right now, every MedF lens except for the handful that I've used doesn't make sense to me unless I translate it into 35mm coverage. I always think of my 645 lenses in terms of their 35mm equivalents. In fact, I've been considering getting a 135mm lens (for my 35mm cameras) after discovering how much I like the 200mm focal length on my 645. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: highly unlikely for a long time to come. if they can make a full frame sensor camera at an affordable price, they will be able to make an APS frame sensor at a much cheaper price. if the sensor also delivers as low noise as current APS sensors at about 8-10 megapixels, it will completely replace 35mm film. the point of going larger than APS is to replace medium format. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. I guess the APS size will provide a cheap alternative, and if it can do the job of current 35mm, all the better. The Medium Format digital backs, such as this offering by Fuji http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_476108product=43026002 are still a long way off. So I guess there is plenty of time to sell lenses specifically for the APS size sensor. Heck, that's only a 24 x 36 mm sensor! That ain't nuthin' compared to this 37 x 52 mm beauty: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp OK, so it's not available in the U.S. (yet) and it's a lot of money. There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease in price. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Now that`s a digital camera! I wonder how big you could go with that, 4ft.X 6ft.? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Mark Roberts Heck, that's only a 24 x 36 mm sensor! That ain't nuthin' compared to this 37 x 52 mm beauty: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp OK, so it's not available in the U.S. (yet) and it's a lot of money. There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease in price. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
I have decided to introduce a device which will double the focal length of any 135 format lens with no reduction of f-stop. I consists of a thin metal plate with a 12x18mm hole in the middle. You simply insert it into the film gate under the film in any 35mm camera. 'Nuff said? -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ryan Charron Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Hi Robert, My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my *ist D. At the risk of being pendantic, how can a 35mm lens be anything other than a 35mm lens, great or otherwise? William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Hum? I figure that 127 is the equivalent of a 31mm on 135 camera. And the 105 is the equivalent of a 46mm. I have always found it strange that people do this stuff, because one works differently in different formats, one tends to use much closer points of view with a large format camera and thus shorter relative focal length lenses. Furthermore prior to the 70's when there was a 35mm explosion and it became the norm no one hardly thought in those terms. As Shel says it seems to be a dumbing down factor (I am ignorant of anything but 35mm make it understandable to me without my having to think). For anyone interested the old Press/View Camera rules of thumb are: Normal = diagonal of the film. Approximately 43mm on 135 format. 150mm on a press camera. Wide angle = the short side of the film. Approximately 24mm on 135. 90mm on a press camera. Wide field = the long side of the negative. Approx 35mm on 135. 127-135 on a press camera. Portrait = the sum of the short and long sides of the film. Approximately 60mm. Usually 200mm on a press camera (that is almost exactly what you get from a 50mm lens on 135 cropped to an 8x10 print, BTW). Telephoto = Twice (or more) the long side of the film. Approximately 70mm on 135. 250-380mm on a press camera. You will note that those are all shorter than we normally think of them in 135 format, though the WA as gotten down to about right in recent years. Once again manufactures's of PS digitals started using 35mm equivalent focal length because there are no standards for sensor size which can vary from the equivalent of a Minox to an APS negative size from camera to camera. It is simply a way to compare the zoom lens equivalent between disparitent cameras. It has no optical meaning other than that. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is equivalent to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask What's that lens in 35mm terms? Hi Shel, I've heard that a lot, and I frequently use 35mm focal lengths as a mental point of comparison. For example, I know that my 127mm 4x5 lens is somewhere around 45mm in 35 terms and my 105mm 6x7 lens is approximately the same as a normal 35mm lens. I work in advertising and I've found that most art directors understand 35mm angle of view, so when working in other formats they frequently ask, What's that in 35mm? The same is true on television shoots where 35mm lenses are closer to APS or the current crop of digitals in focal length vs. angle of view (because the neg is actually half of what we call 35mm.) The still camera 35mm focal lengths are a reference point for many working pros and their clients. Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Mark Roberts wrote: There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease in price. A 24x36mm chunk of silicon wafer will always be a 24x36mm chunk of silicon wafer, and there's no real reason that I can see to expect the price of silicon to plummet. Yields will probably go up slightly, but CCDs aren't pushing the limits of feature size in the way that CPUs are, so I wouldn't expect that to have much of a price impact. The general reason why digital devices keep plummeting in price is because advancing technology allows them to be made smaller, and smaller is cheaper. Fix the size of the device and you lose that advantage. You can still get economies of scale of course - up to a point, the cost of your product decreases if you can sell it to more people. So, personally I don't expect to see an *enormous* reduction in DSLR prices - it'd be nice to be proved wrong tho' ;-) S
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
A very big if. More to the point. would they release a FF camera and stop producing APS? I don't think of the APS sensor as a stop gap. I think it's a new format thet will persist for a long time. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/25/03 10:41AM This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45 DA lens. My 28 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less spontaneity, or I have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location somehow. But its not the same as having the right lens generally. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
This is what I believe. Manufactures like to have an experimental run that can be walked away from in case of problems before committing to new technology, and that's how I view the entire APS experiment - just proving the manufacturing technology for future purposes. Yes they are rumoured to have made billions on APS - profitable experiments are well received! Full-frame sensors may come, but why bother? They're making bags of money with APS-sized sensors, and from a manufactures point of view, APS works for them, it's good enough. Krap is King - Digital Rules! -- Robert - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? A very big if. More to the point. would they release a FF camera and stop producing APS? I don't think of the APS sensor as a stop gap. I think it's a new format thet will persist for a long time. Steven Desjardins
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
I don't see why this is implied by the APS sensor. 35 mm style bodies can take both APS and FF sensors. They may make a 24x36 sensor back for a 645 camera so that MF cameras can have both film and digital and so that back will be cheaper than a full 645 sized sensor. All I'm saying is that there is a market for the smaller sensors. Many PJ's just don't need the more than 4-6 MP, so why deal with storing or transmitting the larger file? The D2H is on 4.2 MP after all. The APS sensor may survive for the same reason 35 mm took off over MF, i.e., it was smaller, cheaper, and good enough. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/24/03 12:34PM So then they`ll just put in a 24X36 sensor in 645`s? Doesn`t make sense to me. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? A very big if. More to the point. would they release a FF camera and stop producing APS? I don't think of the APS sensor as a stop gap. I think it's a new format thet will persist for a long time. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/25/03 10:41AM This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45 DA lens. My 28 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less spontaneity, or I have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location somehow. But its not the same as having the right lens generally. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
If memory serves me right, a 127 on a 4x5 is much tighter than a 31 mm on a 35 mm camera.. But i'll have to get out both cameras and do some visual comparisons to be sure. In any case, the reason photographers tend to communicate in terms of 35mm focal lengths is because the customers understand that. When I shoot a special request for my stock house, they frequently ask for it in terms of 35mm lensing although they know I shot medium format for most of their work. It's just a common language. On Dec 24, 2003, at 10:18 AM, graywolf wrote: Hum? I figure that 127 is the equivalent of a 31mm on 135 camera. And the 105 is the equivalent of a 46mm. I have always found it strange that people do this stuff, because one works differently in different formats, one tends to use much closer points of view with a large format camera and thus shorter relative focal length lenses. Furthermore prior to the 70's when there was a 35mm explosion and it became the norm no one hardly thought in those terms. As Shel says it seems to be a dumbing down factor (I am ignorant of anything but 35mm make it understandable to me without my having to think). For anyone interested the old Press/View Camera rules of thumb are: Normal = diagonal of the film. Approximately 43mm on 135 format. 150mm on a press camera. Wide angle = the short side of the film. Approximately 24mm on 135. 90mm on a press camera. Wide field = the long side of the negative. Approx 35mm on 135. 127-135 on a press camera. Portrait = the sum of the short and long sides of the film. Approximately 60mm. Usually 200mm on a press camera (that is almost exactly what you get from a 50mm lens on 135 cropped to an 8x10 print, BTW). Telephoto = Twice (or more) the long side of the film. Approximately 70mm on 135. 250-380mm on a press camera. You will note that those are all shorter than we normally think of them in 135 format, though the WA as gotten down to about right in recent years. Once again manufactures's of PS digitals started using 35mm equivalent focal length because there are no standards for sensor size which can vary from the equivalent of a Minox to an APS negative size from camera to camera. It is simply a way to compare the zoom lens equivalent between disparitent cameras. It has no optical meaning other than that. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is equivalent to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask What's that lens in 35mm terms? Hi Shel, I've heard that a lot, and I frequently use 35mm focal lengths as a mental point of comparison. For example, I know that my 127mm 4x5 lens is somewhere around 45mm in 35 terms and my 105mm 6x7 lens is approximately the same as a normal 35mm lens. I work in advertising and I've found that most art directors understand 35mm angle of view, so when working in other formats they frequently ask, What's that in 35mm? The same is true on television shoots where 35mm lenses are closer to APS or the current crop of digitals in focal length vs. angle of view (because the neg is actually half of what we call 35mm.) The still camera 35mm focal lengths are a reference point for many working pros and their clients. Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: There's an inexorable trend for sensors to increase in size and decrease in price. A 24x36mm chunk of silicon wafer will always be a 24x36mm chunk of silicon wafer, and there's no real reason that I can see to expect the price of silicon to plummet. Yields will probably go up slightly, but CCDs aren't pushing the limits of feature size in the way that CPUs are, so I wouldn't expect that to have much of a price impact. The general reason why digital devices keep plummeting in price is because advancing technology allows them to be made smaller, and smaller is cheaper. Fix the size of the device and you lose that advantage. You can still get economies of scale of course - up to a point, the cost of your product decreases if you can sell it to more people. Cost reduction will come from three factors (in increasing order of significance): Improvement in yield Economies of scale New, less expensive, manufacturing processes Canon has been hammering away on #3 and their success has helped achieve #2. Everyone else is lagging behind for now. Just wait until others begin to catch up. We ain't seen nuthin' yet. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
if you have sensor capable of full medium format quality, why would you want to have an interchangeable back for 35mm film? the number of people wanting such would be vanishingly small which means very high price. Herb... - Original Message - From: Thomas Stach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 7:32 AM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Hello, if you think large chips are going to replace medium-format, why then not make a body in MF-style (cubic body with perhaps interchangeable backs for digi 35mm-film, interchangeable viewfinders like prism and waistlevel of course) that takes 35mm lenses? There once was the Rollei 3003 in exactly that style...well, that would be a fantastic digital one!
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
planning a several billion dollar experiment just to test the waters isn't in the realm of what most corporations can afford, even spread over 10 years. RD costs are substantial and building a manufacturing line isn't cheap. the Olympus E-1 is such an experiment and i think it is unlikely to succeed unless they get some more cameras out there very quickly at cheaper prices and at much higher resolution. if the E-1 had been introduced at its current list price with an 8 megapixel sensor, it might have had a lot more chance of suceeding. right now, i see it as a non-event. Herb - Original Message - From: Robert Chiasson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? This is what I believe. Manufactures like to have an experimental run that can be walked away from in case of problems before committing to new technology, and that's how I view the entire APS experiment - just proving the manufacturing technology for future purposes. Yes they are rumoured to have made billions on APS - profitable experiments are well received!
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
the incremental cost for a full frame sensor in medium format is a lot less than for a 35mm system. Herb - Original Message - From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? So then they`ll just put in a 24X36 sensor in 645`s? Doesn`t make sense to me. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
think of the opportunities they never captured because they locked themselves in to one FOV. i have 35mm lenses covering from 15mm to 500mm and there are many things i do that are simply impossible without such a range. i'm not a niche photographer. Herb - Original Message - From: Leonard Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Hey, I know pros that used medium and large format cameras for years and never owned anything other than the normal lens for their cameras. It certainly never kept them from making great pictures or earning a living. They zoomed with their feet or they cropped under the enlarger. Rollei TLRs have made a lot of great pictures and still continue to do so.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
This one time, at band camp, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: think of the opportunities they never captured because they locked themselves in to one FOV. i have 35mm lenses covering from 15mm to 500mm and there are many things i do that are simply impossible without such a range. i'm not a niche photographer. If the APS size sensor is to be the norm and the 24x36mm sensor the Medium Format size sensor, perhaps we could see the end of 35mm Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Thats a big if. Whats not a big if is that I have an *istD now with no prime under 85mm and one zoom 15-30 that work with the camera. So I don't need to buy a bunch of new lenses, I need at least one lens somewhere around 28-50 mm to fill that gap. rg Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45 DA lens. My 28 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less spontaneity, or I have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location somehow. But its not the same as having the right lens generally. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. Kind regards Kevin
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Hi Robert, My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my *ist D. Sincerely, Ryan Charron Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:43:13 -0600 From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sometimes its great, my 300mm 2.8 becomes an incredibly fast sharp 450 2.8! But many times its a pain in the a$$; at the wide end, I'm having trouble with a good walking around lens. I have a gap between very wide (15-30 zoom, 15 fisheye) and med wide (28 ) and then to normal (50). __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Ryan Charron Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Hi Robert, My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my *ist D. At the risk of being pendantic, how can a 35mm lens be anything other than a 35mm lens, great or otherwise? William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is equivalent to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask What's that lens in 35mm terms? This equivalency factor smacks of just some more dumbing down by the industry and shows a decided lack of understanding by many contemporary photographers, who seem to need to have everything spoon fed to them like baby porridge. I've got a great 35mm lens that's used on an LX. I decided to put a hood on it from a 200mm lens. Has the focal length increased any? shel William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ryan Charron Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Hi Robert, My Pentax 35mm FA f2 makes a great 52mm lens on my *ist D. At the risk of being pendantic, how can a 35mm lens be anything other than a 35mm lens, great or otherwise? William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On 23 Dec 2003 at 17:19, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is equivalent to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask What's that lens in 35mm terms? This equivalency factor smacks of just some more dumbing down by the industry and shows a decided lack of understanding by many contemporary photographers, who seem to need to have everything spoon fed to them like baby porridge. The quick assessment of angular lens coverage is more important to most any photographer than absolute focal length. Lets face it 95% of the population can relate to AOV as a function of 35mm lens FL. IMHO It's not dumbing down it's simply current convention. And yes I do think of my medium format lenses in terms of equivalent 35mm lens coverage, it's call normalization. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
-Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The quick assessment of angular lens coverage is more important to most any photographer than absolute focal length. Lets face it 95% of the population can relate to AOV as a function of 35mm lens FL. IMHO It's not dumbing down it's simply current convention. And yes I do think of my medium format lenses in terms of equivalent 35mm lens coverage, it's call normalization. I'm with you. I work in 3 formats, I need to something to hang my hat on tv
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is equivalent to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask What's that lens in 35mm terms? Hi Shel, I've heard that a lot, and I frequently use 35mm focal lengths as a mental point of comparison. For example, I know that my 127mm 4x5 lens is somewhere around 45mm in 35 terms and my 105mm 6x7 lens is approximately the same as a normal 35mm lens. I work in advertising and I've found that most art directors understand 35mm angle of view, so when working in other formats they frequently ask, What's that in 35mm? The same is true on television shoots where 35mm lenses are closer to APS or the current crop of digitals in focal length vs. angle of view (because the neg is actually half of what we call 35mm.) The still camera 35mm focal lengths are a reference point for many working pros and their clients. Paul
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? The quick assessment of angular lens coverage is more important to most any photographer than absolute focal length. Lets face it 95% of the population can relate to AOV as a function of 35mm lens FL. IMHO It's not dumbing down it's simply current convention. And yes I do think of my medium format lenses in terms of equivalent 35mm lens coverage, it's call normalization. I suspect that I am in the minority with Shel on this one. I have always thought in terms of what a particular lens will do on a certain format, rather than what a particular lens would do on a different format. My method is to look at a scene and pick a lens that will suit the scene, without relating back to a format I may not be using at the moment. I will look at what I want to photograph and say to myself, I want the 210mm lens (if I am shooting 4x5 that day). What I will not say to myself is that would look great with a 50mm lens, but I am shooting 6x7, so I guess I had better grab the 105 instead. IMHO, this is what the equivalency factor is doing, and I do believe that thinking this way inhibits using a format to it's best advantage. A 50mm lens 0n 35mm may be equivalent to a 105mm lens on 6x7, or a 150mm lens on 4x5 in terms of absolute angle of view, but that is the only valid comparison. Every other imaging factor will differ. William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Sometimes its great, my 300mm 2.8 becomes an incredibly fast sharp 450 2.8! But many times its a pain in the a$$; at the wide end, I'm having trouble with a good walking around lens. I have a gap between very wide (15-30 zoom, 15 fisheye) and med wide (28 ) and then to normal (50). My 28 is an M lens, so now I have a really big gap that nothing in my bag will fill satisfactorly. That's why I'm waiting for the 16-45 da lens coming next month. I think it will solve this problem handily. The only other lens I have that crosses part of this range is a 35-135 zoom which I find somewhat inferior optically. I loaded one of my film bodies with Kodachrome 64 this weekend. I have yet to take a shot with it. sad... rg Rob Studdert wrote: So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Unfortunately, the TIFF is that size only because it is 16 bit. I need a 35 meg 8 bit file - or ~11 x 14 at 300 dpi. - MCC At 12:22 AM 12/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Thursday, Dec 11, 2003, at 00:02 America/New_York, Mark Cassino wrote: The stock agency I work with wants 35 meg files minimum, so I anticipate that I will shoot film in tandem with the *ist D, just to keep them happy. You're almost there. A TIFF file converted from an *ist-D RAW file is 34.6 meg. Upsizing it a little might just do it. --jc - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
At 01:01 AM 12/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: If you use rather more of the 3040 x 2024 sensor than the 3008 x 2008 image area you can get to that 35MB boundary. Is that possible? _ MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
At 01:01 AM 12/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: If you use rather more of the 3040 x 2024 sensor than the 3008 x 2008 image area you can get to that 35MB boundary. Is that possible? Sure looks like it. The RAW file holds the entire 3040 x 2024 area. You'll lose something around the edges because of interpolation, but I'd expect to be able to get perhaps as much as 3032 x 2016 (34.97MB) using a reasonable interpolation algorithm. Of couse there may be another reason why the cameras that use this sensor restrict the image area to 3008 x 2008, but I don't know what. I do know that all 3040 x 2024 sensor sites seem to contain real data.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Well just don't budge an inch, then. Hold your ground and never make the switch. That'll teach 'em! ;-) Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:35:51 EST So it seems that most users who have adopted the *ist D and previously had a functional SLR kit have ceased using film and have been enticed to buy new lenses. Interesting, thanks for the replies. That's exactly what I have been thinking... Seems marketing and consumerism is once again winning out Vic _ Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
At 05:09 PM 12/8/2003 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Since 80% of my shooting is with telephotos, I've been quite happy with the crop factor magnification. My birding rig is now equialent to a 1000mm setup, and having the extra room for insect macro will be great. Initial tests show that my Kiron 105mm f2.8 A-compatable and A* 200 f4 macro will work great with the *ist-D. However... 50mm lenses have gone from a generic all purpose lens to a speciality focal length. In the past, when in doubt I always would opt for a 50mm. An effective 75 mm is just not the same. So I suspect that I will use my 50mm's less, though I will probably use 50mm macros more for close up work. Ditto that with normal zooms in the 28 - 70/100 range. A 43-150 mm zoom is OK, but far less useful. I'll use the 20-35 f4 more, but for now it is a stop gap for a good normal prime. The effective focal length of 30-52 is kinda lame (would you buy a 30-50 zoom for a film camera?) But for now it is the best walk around lens I have. I find the prospect of no true ultra wide angle to be a bit disturbing. I shoot a fair amount at 20mm in 35mm film, and can;t really replicate this with the *ist D. ANd every now and then I want to shoot really wide or fisheye, and neither goes well with the *ist d. But I for every ultra wide shot I want to take, there is probably 100 telephotos that I take, so I can live with it. Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? I'm waiting to see what happens when I take the *ist-D into production mode. This time of year is terrible for outdoor phtogrpahy here, and I'm tied up with retail stuff anyhow. The stock agency I work with wants 35 meg files minimum, so I anticipate that I will shoot film in tandem with the *ist D, just to keep them happy. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On Thursday, Dec 11, 2003, at 00:02 America/New_York, Mark Cassino wrote: The stock agency I work with wants 35 meg files minimum, so I anticipate that I will shoot film in tandem with the *ist D, just to keep them happy. You're almost there. A TIFF file converted from an *ist-D RAW file is 34.6 meg. Upsizing it a little might just do it. --jc
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On Thursday, Dec 11, 2003, at 00:02 America/New_York, Mark Cassino wrote: The stock agency I work with wants 35 meg files minimum, so I anticipate that I will shoot film in tandem with the *ist D, just to keep them happy. You're almost there. A TIFF file converted from an *ist-D RAW file is 34.6 meg. Upsizing it a little might just do it. If you use rather more of the 3040 x 2024 sensor than the 3008 x 2008 image area you can get to that 35MB boundary.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Very correct, Bill. This 35mm equivalent thing came about because there are (getting to be more, were)no standards for sensor size in digital cameras. And there needed to be some way to compare FOV (field of view) between various cameras. The problem is that folks try to use it to compare more than just FOV. And, as you say, that does not work. Their 50mm lens on the *istD does not work like a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, it works like a 50mm lens on an APS camera. -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? I disagree, i think you can and should compare the digital sensor size with other formats. Its often a neccesary so as to descide which tool to use for a job. Agreed, but what people are doing, by making the comparisons the way they are doing it, (eg, my 35mm lens is really a 52mm) is treating it like a mini 35mm format, and then they are running into these difficulties. I have the same issues with 35mm as compared to 6x7, the DOF seems to go on forever, and it's impossible to isolate the subject from the background. What we should be doing is learning the format by it's own merits, and learning what it's limitations are, not doing some comparative juggling act where we call one focal length 50% longer or some such. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
But you are talking the subtle differences in resolution, bokeh and so on that differentiate one lens from another that otherwise project the same image onto a field, aren't you? Those differences aside (and aperture adjusted to the same DOF) a 75mm lens DOES project the same image on a 35mm film than a 50 does on APS. Or am I missing something fundamental here? Sven Zitat von graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Very correct, Bill. This 35mm equivalent thing came about because there are (getting to be more, were)no standards for sensor size in digital cameras. And there needed to be some way to compare FOV (field of view) between various cameras. The problem is that folks try to use it to compare more than just FOV. And, as you say, that does not work. Their 50mm lens on the *istD does not work like a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, it works like a 50mm lens on an APS camera. -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? I disagree, i think you can and should compare the digital sensor size with other formats. Its often a neccesary so as to descide which tool to use for a job. Agreed, but what people are doing, by making the comparisons the way they are doing it, (eg, my 35mm lens is really a 52mm) is treating it like a mini 35mm format, and then they are running into these difficulties. I have the same issues with 35mm as compared to 6x7, the DOF seems to go on forever, and it's impossible to isolate the subject from the background. What we should be doing is learning the format by it's own merits, and learning what it's limitations are, not doing some comparative juggling act where we call one focal length 50% longer or some such. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
No, I am talking simple optics, and ignoring the difference in media. FOV is the only thing comparable. Magnification, DOF, resolution, etc. are all different, as I said there is really no comparison except for FOV. That is a convenience for comparing two different formats but not for anything else. For instance, a 50mm on a 35 and a 200mm on a 4x5 have the same FOV (at least vertically). Do you think they are comparable in any other way? -- keller.schaefer wrote: But you are talking the subtle differences in resolution, bokeh and so on that differentiate one lens from another that otherwise project the same image onto a field, aren't you? Those differences aside (and aperture adjusted to the same DOF) a 75mm lens DOES project the same image on a 35mm film than a 50 does on APS. Or am I missing something fundamental here? Sven Zitat von graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Very correct, Bill. This 35mm equivalent thing came about because there are (getting to be more, were)no standards for sensor size in digital cameras. And there needed to be some way to compare FOV (field of view) between various cameras. The problem is that folks try to use it to compare more than just FOV. And, as you say, that does not work. Their 50mm lens on the *istD does not work like a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, it works like a 50mm lens on an APS camera. -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? I disagree, i think you can and should compare the digital sensor size with other formats. Its often a neccesary so as to descide which tool to use for a job. Agreed, but what people are doing, by making the comparisons the way they are doing it, (eg, my 35mm lens is really a 52mm) is treating it like a mini 35mm format, and then they are running into these difficulties. I have the same issues with 35mm as compared to 6x7, the DOF seems to go on forever, and it's impossible to isolate the subject from the background. What we should be doing is learning the format by it's own merits, and learning what it's limitations are, not doing some comparative juggling act where we call one focal length 50% longer or some such. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: keller.schaefer Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? But you are talking the subtle differences in resolution, bokeh and so on that differentiate one lens from another that otherwise project the same image onto a field, aren't you? Those differences aside (and aperture adjusted to the same DOF) a 75mm lens DOES project the same image on a 35mm film than a 50 does on APS. Or am I missing something fundamental here? Well, no, if you consider resolution, bokeh and so on to be subtle differences. William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Just fine. I made the transition pretty seamlessly in this regard. I think it comes from using several film formats already. I'm not making the mistake of thinking in terms of magnification factors. Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Yup. Not having really wide angle lenses for the digital format means I am still shooting quite a bit of film. OTOH, I am also getting pretty good with the photomerge automation sequence in Photoshop, which can be made to be like having a very wide angle, if one is careful. William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On Monday, Dec 8, 2003, at 02:09 America/New_York, Rob Studdert wrote: So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? More or less transparently. I don't even think about the mag factor at all when I shoot. Over time, I'll probably find myself adjusting my lens mix. e.g. I went to the Giant Tuna cutting performance at Mitsuwa Marketplace yesterday with a FAJ 18-35 and a A-135/2.8. The 18-35 was right for the overview shots but a little short on the tele side. The 135 on the other hand was a little too long on some shots. I had thought about bringing the FA28-70/4, but didn't because I wanted a small and light kit. So I guess I'm looking for a 15-60 lens. Is there any out there? Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? No. I thought I'd use the PZ-1p as backup/fallback. Instead, I now find myself using the Olympus C-5050 as backup/secondary even with the huge shutter lag. --jc
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
on 08.12.03 16:09, Juey Chong Ong at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I guess I'm looking for a 15-60 lens. Is there any out there? So you'd better wait for this: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0308/03080801pentaxda1645m.asp -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Cheers, Rob I'm coping just fine! I no longer have film bodies. The one thing I'd like is a faster 18mm or so. I don't shoot too much on the wide end, but I'm enjoying the 1.5x on the long end. Christian
RE: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
The only problem I found is with the wa side. My 24 is the widest I've got and I used the 24 a lot with my film camera. My lense lined up nicely otherwise. 24 to 35mm 35 to 50mm (I might sell this one since I don't use 50mm much) 50 to 75mm (finally a portrait lens) 100 to 150mm (haven't done much macro yet, it's fall/winter anyway) 200 to 300mm (I'll probably replace this one for the 80-200/2.8 for versatility and tripod collar) 300 to 450mm (this is great) I just hope that the DA16-45mm is as great optically as I expect, otherwise I'll have to hope for a 16mm prime. Paul _ Winterize your home with tips from MSN House Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
I am awaiting the DA 16-45 f4, and hope it is followed soon by DA 50-200 f4, DA 12-18 f4, and fast (at least f2) primes at 13 and 16 mm. I told the Pentax rep that if Pentax doesn't fill these gaps soon, Sigma will. Pentax will fill the holes in its own time, at least for zooms. If we see primes appear, it will mean that the APS-sized sensor will be around for a while. I am keeping my two PZ-1ps. Local shooting is now digital, travel shooting will be film for a while, at least until the storage problem is worked out. If I go back to Mali it will be only with film cameras. Joe
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Hi, I think its a bad idea to think of it as a magnification factor, as its really cropping the edges. One thing that annoys me is that even though a 50mm becomes the right length for a portrait lens, its not as flattering as really having an 85mm focal length on the camera. Also my standard lens is a 24mm lens and using this lens as a 38mm (i'm using a 10d) the images are no where near as compressed as they would be with a 35mm or 40mm lens on 35mm file. Regards, Paul
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On 8/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I think its a bad idea to think of it as a magnification factor, as its really cropping the edges. One thing that annoys me is that even though a 50mm becomes the right length for a portrait lens, its not as flattering as really having an 85mm focal length on the camera. Also my standard lens is a 24mm lens and using this lens as a 38mm (i'm using a 10d) the images are no where near as compressed as they would be with a 35mm or 40mm lens on 35mm file. This is sadly true, and far from ideal. It's why I dream of the day I can get a 1Ds. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Rob Studdert wrote: So it seems that most users who have adopted the *ist D and previously had a functional SLR kit have ceased using film and have been enticed to buy new lenses. Interesting, thanks for the replies. ... all part of the grand design, I suppose. Another clever scheme to separate folks from their excess $$ ;^) Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Paul Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Hi, I think its a bad idea to think of it as a magnification factor, as its really cropping the edges. One thing that annoys me is that even though a 50mm becomes the right length for a portrait lens, its not as flattering as really having an 85mm focal length on the camera. Also my standard lens is a 24mm lens and using this lens as a 38mm (i'm using a 10d) the images are no where near as compressed as they would be with a 35mm or 40mm lens on 35mm file. Try using a 105mm lens on a 6x7, or a 150mm lens on a 4x5. You can't compare APS format digital to 35mm that way. It's a different format, with some advantages and some disadvantages. I find that with 6x7, I can't secure sufficient depth of field to do the type of landscape work I do, and I can't secure fine enough grain and sufficient detail to get the results I like. Yet I can secure sufficient depth of field and get the grain/resolution I like with 4x5 inch. William Robb
RE: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
No big deal. What I see in the viewfinder is what I get. In most of my photography my problem is getting close enough, not farther away. For wide angle work, I'm pretty happy with the FA 20-35 and I can always use the Zenitar 16mm Fisheye if I want something wider. Nikon has a 12-24mm zoom on the way so I'm sure Pentax has plans for something similar. If someone just *has* to have film, I will gladly shoot film but I encourage them to try digital. Sometimes I shoot both and see if they can tell the difference from looking at the prints. The great majority can't tell the difference. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies?
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
I disagree, i think you can and should compare the digital sensor size with other formats. Its often a neccesary so as to descide which tool to use for a job. William Robb wrote: Try using a 105mm lens on a 6x7, or a 150mm lens on a 4x5. You can't compare APS format digital to 35mm that way. It's a different format, with some advantages and some disadvantages. I find that with 6x7, I can't secure sufficient depth of field to do the type of landscape work I do, and I can't secure fine enough grain and sufficient detail to get the results I like. Yet I can secure sufficient depth of field and get the grain/resolution I like with 4x5 inch. William Robb
RE: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
The really clever scheme to separate folks from their money is what they'll have to spend for film sometime down the road. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 ... all part of the grand design, I suppose. Another clever scheme to separate folks from their excess $$ ;^) Bill
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
I've heard that some new dslr users have given up food so they get new lenses. Jim A. From: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:57:01 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:56:34 -0500 Rob Studdert wrote: So it seems that most users who have adopted the *ist D and previously had a functional SLR kit have ceased using film and have been enticed to buy new lenses. Interesting, thanks for the replies. ... all part of the grand design, I suppose. Another clever scheme to separate folks from their excess $$ ;^) Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
So it seems that most users who have adopted the *ist D and previously had a functional SLR kit have ceased using film and have been enticed to buy new lenses. Interesting, thanks for the replies. That's exactly what I have been thinking... Seems marketing and consumerism is once again winning out Vic
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? So it seems that most users who have adopted the *ist D and previously had a functional SLR kit have ceased using film and have been enticed to buy new lenses. Interesting, thanks for the replies. That's exactly what I have been thinking... Seems marketing and consumerism is once again winning out Maybe I just got lucky, or maybe I have all the lenses I want. When I bought my 6x7, I concluded that I would have to purchase a few lenses for this new format. Same when I bought my 4x5. I needed a few lenses to support that format as well. Why would the 17x25mm format be any different? Would it have been better if the ist D wasn't compatable with a current lens series at all? Would we be that much happier if Pentax had offered up a completely new lens mount that didn't offer any way to mount current lenses? Buying into a new format, and thinking that you won't have to buy a lens or two for that new format seems kinda silly to me. William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
On 8 Dec 2003 at 22:55, William Robb wrote: Would it have been better if the ist D wasn't compatable with a current lens series at all? Would we be that much happier if Pentax had offered up a completely new lens mount that didn't offer any way to mount current lenses? Buying into a new format, and thinking that you won't have to buy a lens or two for that new format seems kinda silly to me. I for one was most interested in a FF sensor, I also expected to be able to use the aperture ring on a compatible body. Such is life. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? I for one was most interested in a FF sensor, I also expected to be able to use the aperture ring on a compatible body. Such is life. A FF sensor would have solved a lot of issues, as would full K mount compatability. I still have hopes for the latter, but I think the digital format is lileky going to be APS sized. William Robb
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
So it seems that most users who have adopted the *ist D and previously had a functional SLR kit have ceased using film and have been enticed to buy new lenses. Interesting, thanks for the replies. That's exactly what I have been thinking... Seems marketing and consumerism is once again winning out Possibly. Or, perhaps, people have found that the *ist-D is a sutable tool for the job they are trying to do, and have adopted it for that reason.o
Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 2:09 AM Subject: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? I'm coping just fine so far, but I would like to get the FAJ 16-whatever when it's available. Currently my shortest rectilenear is a Sigma 24-50 and a Zenitar 16 fisheye. Since I'm using only the center portion, the distortion is lessened somewhat. For wildlife photography my Tamron 70-300 is now a 105-450, much better for this purpose. Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Not really. The versatility of having variable ISO and adjustable white balance beats either switching between bodies or changing film and/or filters for different subjects. Also, for my purposes, I find my inkjet prints using P.I.M. II and nik sharpener pro far exceed the quality of minilab prints, at least up to 11x14. Bill
Fw: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Whoops again. Make that the DA 16-whatever :-) Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 2:09 AM Subject: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor? So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? I'm coping just fine so far, but I would like to get the FAJ 16-whatever when it's available. Currently my shortest rectilenear is a Sigma 24-50 and a Zenitar 16 fisheye. Since I'm using only the center portion, the distortion is lessened somewhat. For wildlife photography my Tamron 70-300 is now a 105-450, much better for this purpose. Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Not really. The versatility of having variable ISO and adjustable white balance beats either switching between bodies or changing film and/or filters for different subjects. Also, for my purposes, I find my inkjet prints using P.I.M. II and nik sharpener pro far exceed the quality of minilab prints, at least up to 11x14. Bill
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
For me, I kind of started fresh. I sold off 35mm gear some time back. Based on friend's experiences with focal changes, I knew that I would probably not use the lenses in quite the same manner. At this stage, I have aquired or will aquire the following: F 17-28/3.5-4.5 fisheye Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 AF193 Tokina 28-105/3.5-4.5 AF Pentax 80-320/4.5-5.6 (Don't suspect this will get used that much) and may get replaced with something more like an 80-200 later Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 (Ditto above) FA *24/2.0 FA 50/1.4 Tamron 90/2.8 Macro This set gives me some reasonable speed zooms without breaking the bank and a moderate wide angle (24mm) prime for groups, a short tele (50mm) for portraits and a longer tele/macro (90mm). This should be a good start, while I learn what might be missing. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, December 7, 2003, 11:09:18 PM, you wrote: RS So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses RS now less useful than they were on film bodies? RS Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? RS Cheers, RS Rob Studdert RS HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ RS Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
