The linkages would be a bitch, and probably unprotected and fragile. On
the plus side it would probably be expensive.
Peter Loveday wrote:
In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it
is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more
mature. It would have to push the
Yes, and that is why for an equivalent focal lenght you get more DOF
with the *ist than with film. Because a 50mm lens has more DOF than a
75mm lens.
A.
On 20 Jul 2004, at 02:36, Don Sanderson wrote:
Tanya, that 50mm lens is still a 50mm, not a 75. You're just using a
piece
out of the middle
Camera companies in general like to sell new lenses as it makes them
more money, so whilst it is possible I dont think you will find Pentax
themselves doing it but rather smaller outfits like Cosina, as they
have with the TM.
A.
On 20 Jul 2004, at 02:40, Peter Loveday wrote:
In the long run I
meddelelse-
Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 20. juli 2004 01:02
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: DOF and digital cameras
Well it is relevant is so far as the discussion was looking at the
merits and demerits of the *istD vis-a-vis a 35mm film system.
A.
On 20 Jul 2004, at 00
and his
mother knows that!
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
Huh?
I am pretty sure I have a handle
Really?
It's a function of the focal length of the lens (for a given aperture).
Smaller format = shorter focal length normal lens = greater depth of
field.
Digital cameras (and APS cameras) are smaller format than 35mm.
Regards,
Bob...
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not true. The
6:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras
Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or
film. I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any
impact on DOF. It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you
could just say: DOF
of the image size
to the subject size and aperture used. All else is irrelevant.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras
Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing
/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
Huh?
I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio
Subject
M42
lenses though or it would make no sense over a K body with
an adapter.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras
Finally someone got it. That is precisely what
On 20 Jul 2004 at 1:07, Antonio Aparicio wrote:
Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my
earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await
afordable full frame digital.
So do I but only so that I can make full use of the full image circle
On 19 Jul 2004 at 19:19, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount
support. I don't think it will be that far off.
Unfortunately a camera of that spec while offering the advantage of FF AOV
would provide a lower spatial resolution than the
.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2004 9:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras
Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my
earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras
Tanya, that 50mm lens is still a 50mm, not a 75. You're just using a piece
out of the middle of the full frame.
Thats why the image is that of a 75 and the DOF that of a 50.
I've been playing with a piece of frosted glass taped into ME super
On 19 Jul 2004 at 20:08, Don Sanderson wrote:
Having said what I did in my post below I guess I'm agreeing with 4 things
at once:
1.) DOF is dependent on image size to subject size ratio, and aperture.
2.) That the final working image is dependent on FL, Distance and Format.
Smaller
I hereby refuse to get into this one again, and again, and again... GRIN!
--
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 19 Jul 2004 at 20:08, Don Sanderson wrote:
Having said what I did in my post below I guess I'm agreeing with 4 things
at once:
1.) DOF is dependent on image size to subject size ratio, and
influence DOF at all. End of story.
All the best
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 20. juli 2004 01:02
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: DOF and digital cameras
Well
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 20. juli 2004 01:20
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: DOF and digital cameras
what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount
support. I don't think it will be that far off.
In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it
is out
18 matches
Mail list logo
