Exactly. That is what I thought too.
Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter
lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more
DOF.
A.
On 19 Jul 2004, at 03:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and
Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a
132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm,
hence a different DOF, no?
A.
On 19 Jul 2004, at 01:20, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Antonio Aparicio wrote:
You correct Don. DOF is an
Yes, but what about the old 85mm range which is what most people use
for portraits?
A.
On 19 Jul 2004, at 03:53, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 at 21:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and
have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size
But with the smaller frame on the *ist D you get the same (subject) image
size:
1.) From a Greater Distance with the same focal length.
2.) With a shorter Focal Length from the same distance.
Both of these conditions would INCREASE depth of field it seems to me.
Or is there some law of optics I'm
Exaclty, so with the *ist you get greater DOF for the same focal length
or AOV. Which is fine if that is what you want but not gret if you like
shallow DOF without having to resort to a 300mm lens.
A.
On 19 Jul 2004, at 13:23, Don Sanderson wrote:
But with the smaller frame on the *ist D you
On 19 Jul 2004 at 7:39, Tom Reese wrote:
Antonio wrote:
Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter
lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more
DOF.
It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm
lens at f/8
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100
Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now
a
132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the
50mm,
hence
Ver clever William, yes the lens focal lengh doesnt change but the view
you get is no longer that of an 85mm lens because of the crop factor.
Which is what I was refering too. But of course you know that and are
just being a smarty pants.
A.
On 19 Jul 2004, at 16:13, William Robb wrote:
-
the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the
practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens
quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:41, Herb Chong wrote:
the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the
practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens
quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera.
What makes you say this Herb?
All my
Alan Chan wrote:
Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA
lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 FA50/2.8 etc)
because
they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can
confirm.
Just wait a few weeks and you'll see...
On 18 Jul 2004 at 14:12, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Just wait a few weeks and you'll see...
I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens line-
up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast
end.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel
my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F.
acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from
my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in sharpness on
the *istD. Velvia scans show more difference. none of my lesser expensive
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens
line-up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast
end.
Frankly, I have no problem with Pentax's lens lineup at all. I suppose
I'd rather like a fast
Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as
versus the softer random edges in film grain?
Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to
think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital.
Don
-Original Message-
From:
Assuming you had film and digital sensors of same resolution/mm spec,
a FF film image will be sharper than a APS digtial sensor until
the lens used with the APS sensor is 50% sharper than the lens used
on film. With APS digital you need really good lenses to match
average lenses on FF film. Reason
that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the
center portion of the lens circle.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros?
Gotcha, kinda like being saddled with a 1.5x rear converter all the time.
Yuck.
Would this also leave DOF the same for a give F stop even though the
effective focal length increases by 1.5x?
That would mean having to run wide open more often to control DOF,
decreasing sharpness further on most
that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the
center portion of the lens circle.
I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the
lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification.
Even the photography magazines seem to have
Alan wrote:
I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax
ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold
that well.
REPLY:
I've no idea whether there will be more Limited lenses. I've heard though, that the
Now, if the majority of photographers would begin to understand.
As I've mentioned in the past, a 50mm lens projects the same size image on
the film/sensor regardless of format, it's just that the image takes up a
larger portion of the film/sensor the smaller the format.
Bill
- Original
But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER section of
the image circle,
Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the
image circle is capable of,
you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the imperfections
in the lens with it.
I wanted to take that back the moment I clicked send!
You ARE NOT magnifying more, you're simply wasting part of the potential
frame size.
However, since the lens was designed with a specific frame size in mind,
I would think performance would be affected.
DOF should be deeper and oddly enough
On 18 Jul 2004 at 21:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and
have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF
should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF
than 35mm.
It might be a greater DOF in
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is
Dying)
Alan wrote:
Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some
Pentax FA
lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 FA50/2.8
etc) because
I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense
for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one
(FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. This is especially true when people are
saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote:
saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to
FA77 and would be a mistake imho.
Why? Was it a mistake to have 50s at 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8 at the same
time?
I thought macros (like the 87 Paal is talking about) are a different
Why not an DA Limited series ?
-Message d'origine-
De : Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : samedi 17 juillet 2004 22:23
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it
Why not an DA Limited series ?
I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses,
instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus
buyers.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
Why not an DA Limited series ?
I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses,
instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus
buyers.
Manual focus good - auto-focus bad.
Manual focus good - auto-focus bad.
Film-based SLR good - DSLR
30 matches
Mail list logo
