Sorry Bob W, I meant Bob B. My mistake. You always behave as a perfect
gentleman.
Antonio
On 16/8/04 8:51 am, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
From: Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact I am starting to get a feel for who the abusers are on this list
(you, Tom C, Greyworld, Peter Alling,
Ah you trollers, forever seeking attention.
Antonio
On 16/8/04 9:47 am, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I join?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
I'm pretty sure that the only reason I got left off his little hate list
is because I switched his posts to the bit-bucket far earlier than the
list of honorees below.
You've apparently abused Antonio, I think just because you exist, so
when is since he's been subscribed to the list I would
Don¹t worry Norm, you were included amongst the few others, along with the
other sheep (Coty, Don Co.)
By the way, what is it with you guys and Penis size?
Antonio
On 16/8/04 2:15 am, Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget me, you little prick.
Norm
From: Antonio [EMAIL
Sorry - never heard of you.
A.
On 16/8/04 9:59 am, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me too. Allright, not so frequently ;-) Not only that, but I'm a traitor too
:-P
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
Sorry - never heard of you.
A.
On 16/8/04 9:59 am, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me too. Allright, not so frequently ;-) Not only that, but I'm a traitor too
:-P
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
You guys better stop picking on Antonio, now. He sued his parents and had
them thrown in jail.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 06:30:17 -0600
I was going
Same here. I have to empty the trash all the time, it gets full of
***nio posts.
John Francis wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the only reason I got left off his little hate list
is because I switched his posts to the bit-bucket far earlier than the
list of honorees below.
You've apparently
I'll reply to the bit of you post that acutally is relevant tot he topic.
For the last time (I hope). When people sax an xmm lens is the 35mm
equivalent of a ymm lens they are not saying it is exacctly the same in all
respects, but rather the AOV is simimilar because of the crop factor brought
Wow, what a nasty bitch you turned out to be. There, is that what you wanted
to hear? Do you get a rise out of winding people up? You are not right. The
35mm equivalent or this lens becomes that lens statements are widespread
and perfectly correct. They refer to AOV. Nobody is talking focal
On 15 Aug 2004 at 8:41, Antonio wrote:
The term single lens reflex is not actually correct either as most
moderns lenses actually combine a number of lens elements to form the whole -
but most people seem to understand that it is nto a literal statement.
If you are going to use terms for
Gosh. All I wanted to know was why the DA14mm is so large and heavy? (I
know now - thanks Alex). Now everyone is arguing about lenses not being
able to magically transform into other lenses, calling each other jackass
and/or stupid - even arguing about who's p**is is the biggest. It's all
good
Hi Rob, yes, I was just using the term SLR as an illustration of why you
cannot take some terms literally - yes I know it is used to differentiate
SLRs from TLRs. Thanks. I was not arguing otherwise.
As to exercising restraint, I believe I have shown great restraint in this
and other threads over
Don't forget me, you little prick.
Norm
From: Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact I am starting to get a feel for who the abusers are on this list
(you, Tom C, Greyworld, Peter Alling, Bob W and a few others).
Norm, Norm, Norm.
Don't you know Pri** is supposed to be capitalised in this context?
Don
-Original Message-
From: Norman Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 7:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
Don't forget me
I for one feel honored to be on this list and I'm glad to welcome Norm.
Even though I've tried to ignore this twit for
the last few weeks.
Norman Baugher wrote:
Don't forget me, you little prick.
Norm
From: Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact I am starting to get a feel for who the abusers are on
On 14 Aug 2004 at 6:47, Don Sanderson wrote:
On the issue of Angle of view, Adorama lists a 100mm lens (for 35mm K
mount)with an angle of view of 30 degrees. They also list a 90mm lens (also for
35mm K mount)with an angle of view of 27 degrees! This is backwards, impossible,
illogical and
a language!)
Don
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Endless Debate - was RE - DA14mm - why so large and
heavy?
On 14 Aug 2004 at 6:47, Don Sanderson wrote:
On the issue
--- John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
snip
But spare a thought for those poor saps who use
several different formats,
and are weighing up the pros and cons of buying a
small PS and have
absolutely no idea (because the manufacturers won't
help them) whether a
50mm lens
Antonio posted:
Well Greyworld, given that most people use the 35mm equivalent measure I
think you are completely out of touch with modern camera terminology if you
think it is ilustrative of penis envy (or spending too much time on your own
in the widerness). Just check dpreview.com, to take
Trolling again William? Why is it so hard for you to accept that most people
use and understand the term 35mm equivalent when refering to non-35mm
formats?
A.
On 14/8/04 3:30 pm, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Antonio
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so
Aha, here comes the rest of the lynch Mob. How is it you only join threads I
am in to attack me?
I am quite capable of speaking for myself thanks - your representation of my
comments is in fact (surprise, surprise) wrong. Boy you guys do like
spinning it, dont you.
Saying that a 50mm lens
Don Sanderson wrote:
Ah, Yes!
Yet another unanswered question.
One AssUMes diagonal! ;-(
That's kinda like calling this CRT I have a 17 inch.
Useful figure if you like to look at the plastic bezel, to me it's a 16
inch, plus a tad. ;-)
Which, in and of itself, is not the whole story unless you
Antonio wondered:
Aha, here comes the rest of the lynch Mob. How is it you only join threads I
am in to attack me?
Because you are a jackass and I think some of your more asinine posts require
correction.
I am quite capable of speaking for myself thanks - your representation of my
comments
Frank,
You can't look through the viewfinder while making a shortlist from a
webpage.
And, yes, you do need to specify the AOV for a particular lens/camera
combination. Obviously a 35mm lens has a different angle of view when
used on a *ist D.
What I am trying to say is that 35mm
You go girl! ;-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 11:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
Antonio wondered:
Aha, here comes the rest of the lynch Mob. How is it you only
Yet another abusive post ERN. Very good. Well done. I am sure your gallery
will love it. However calling someone a Jackass doesnt win an argument, nor
make you right, it just makes you look abusive. 50mm becomes xmm on a
digital camera is easy enough to understand, as is the 35mm equivalent of
A 50mm lens won't become anything else, no matter what do you do. That's
the truth, and I won't accept anything less.
And why should I? For the herd who can't bother to understand what's a focal
length? Of course there is no one on this list to tell us, but I've meet
enough of them... and guess
Its quite simple. Really. You are being a bit obtuse I think.
When people say x lens becomes y lens on a digital camera - all they are
really saying is that, due to the crop with the smaller sensor size on most
digital cameras, the angle of view of xmm lens (on a digital camera) becomes
that of
Focal lengh is not the issue. Angle of view is. Focal lenght does not change
between formats. It is a fixed property of the lens. What Pentax and others
do however to differentiate between a lenses performance on digital (*ist)
and 35mm cameras is refer to angle of view.
Linky:
, if I mount it on the istD, my 6x7 lenses are still,
frustratingly enough, the same focal length as what the manufacturer
claims them to be.
All this is so confusing, I think I feel my brain leaking out my ear.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so
.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
I was going to comment on this, but I commented on it last month when
it came up.
Maybe when it comes up next month
Bill Owens wrote:
I can't understand why so many can't grasp this, after all a xxmm lens is an
xxmm lens regardless of whether it's on an 8x10 view camera or a 110 format
camera. The image size is the same on all, it's just that on an 8x10 camera
the image takes up a smaller portion of the film
Nope that would be fresh air entering your skull, your brain leaked out
weeks ago.
A.
\On 13/8/04 2:30 pm, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this is so confusing, I think I feel my brain leaking out my ear.
William Robb
Steve wrote:
It's easy to explain. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, you select a lens
with a particular focal length for a particular photo because it provides
the angle of view you want for that shot. But lenses aren't identified in
terms of angle of view, they're identified in terms of focal
I think he intended them to be. Doesn't anyone understand sarcasm.
Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
graywolf wrote:
That is kind of silly, you could just crop an APS size section of the FF
image
and get the same effect. Or you could take your 35mm put an aps size mask
in it
and say
confusing, I think I feel my brain leaking out my ear.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
That is kind of silly, you could just crop an APS size section of
the FF image
and get the same effect. Or you could take your 35mm put
Angle of View is often confused with Angle of Coverage?
Coverage (film plane) determines which format a lens
is suitable for.
View is often used for either film plane Coverage or subject Coverage.
Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
-
Every individual is continually
Graywolf wrote:
People must have just been smarter in the old days. Nowadays, suckers
believe
anything the advertising guys say.
I wrote:
The last two sentences are a bit mean mate.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
I think he intended them to be. Doesn't anyone understand sarcasm.
I don't think
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
You can disagree with someone and be a pedant to the point of annoyance but
there is no need to be insulting.
Come on Nenad, you answered (suitably and well, in my opinion) the
points that concern photography; move on with the rest, is my
Kostas wrote:
Come on Nenad, you answered (suitably and well, in my opinion) the
points that concern photography; move on with the rest, is my suggestion.
Good point Kostas. Sorry - sometimes I get carried away. I'll move on now
;-)
- Original Message -
From: Steve Jolly
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
It's easy to explain. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, you
select a
lens with a particular focal length for a particular photo because
it
provides the angle of view you want for that shot
- Original Message -
From: Nenad Djurdjevic
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
Well put. The focal length of a wide angle lens for medium format
is not
going to be a wide focal length for 35mm and a wide 35mm lens is
not wide
for an APS sized sensor. The corollary
, it misses the point totally.
John
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:54:44 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Nenad Djurdjevic
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
Well put. The focal length of a wide angle lens for medium format
is not
going to be a wide
Frank,
You're a perfect example of what I meant when I referred to the old days
of two formats (mainly) with very little overlap (with due deference to
all those on this list who use 35mm and MF and Speed Graphics, and perhaps
now digital).
You only ever use 35mm, so focal length works fine
-
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, William Robb wrote:
I refer everything back to 6x7, since it is in the middle of the
size
range of formats that I use.
Yes, and I could start writing in Greek, but would anyone care?
I have seen
ROTFLMAO!
Don
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
Well! The 50mm lens on the Super Duper New Digital is the
equalent of a 200mm
lens on a 35mm
I have had a look at the specs for the DA14/2.8 on Boz's site and I am a bit
disappointed with the size and weight of this lens. I was hoping it would
be a good hiking lens but it is heavier than the DA16-45/4 (which is no
lightweight itself).
Given that it has the same angle of view as a 21mm
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
Given that it has the same angle of view as a 21mm full frame lens why is it
so much bigger and heavier than the FA20/2.8? I thought that the idea
behind smaller image circle lenses was so that they could be lighter and
smaller?
APS-C sized
alex wrote:
Compare it to a full frame 14/2.8 lens and you'll see that it is
small, light, and cheap. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/14mm.asp
shows the Tamron 14/2.8 as weighing 661g and being 89mm long and 87mm
in length. The DA 14/2.8 is 420g (about 30% lighter) and only 69mm
long and 83mm
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:44:52 +0800, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
On the other hand you can rejoice that a 50/1.4 (which has the angle
of view of a 75/1.4 in 35mm) is so nice and light.
That's true. Even better still an A135/1.8 becomes a 200mm/1.8 - much
smaller, faster and lighter than a real
DougF wrote:
Yeah, but a real 200/2.8 becomes a 300/2.8 with a gain in size and
weight at least equal to the gain made on the 135. And the 300/4
becomes a 450/4 ... and the 400/5.6 becomes a 600/5.6 ... yummy! :-)
Quite right. That is why when a (Pentax) Full Frame digital body comes out
I
52 matches
Mail list logo
