Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-03-01 Thread David Mann
Brendan wrote: Aaron would like you all to know that if you choose to get a *istD, it must be with the 67 adaptor. That is all. Unfortunately the price of the *ist-D might be close to that of the 67 75mm f/2.8 lens. Decisions, decisions... I'd better get my light leak fixed first :(

Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread Brendan
Aaron would like you all to know that if you choose to get a *istD, it must be with the 67 adaptor. That is all. now back to your regularly scheduled bitch, moan and gripe fest. __ Post your free ad now!

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread William Robb
- Original Message - From: Brendan Subject: Note to the Brother hood Aaron would like you all to know that if you choose to get a *istD, it must be with the 67 adaptor. That is all. Already have the adaptor. That little digital will look pretty cute behind my 300mm f/4. William

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread Bill D. Casselberry
William Robb wrote: Already have the adaptor. That little digital will look pretty cute behind my 300mm f/4. Hmmm - if there's a 1.5x tele-factor between the Ist-D and 35mm, anyone care to calculate the effective focal length of Wheatfield's 300mm 6x7 lens on

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread William Robb
- Original Message - From: Bill D. Casselberry Subject: Re: Note to the Brother hood Hmmm - if there's a 1.5x tele-factor between the Ist-D and 35mm, anyone care to calculate the effective focal length of Wheatfield's 300mm 6x7 lens on that tiny patch of silicon? ... somewhere

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread Peter Alling
Easy 450mm 35mm equivalent. But then I think you knew that. At 06:46 PM 2/28/2003 -0800, you wrote: William Robb wrote: Already have the adaptor. That little digital will look pretty cute behind my 300mm f/4. Hmmm - if there's a 1.5x tele-factor between the Ist-D and 35mm,

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread David Brooks
Damn,645 or 6x7 now this.Obey Wan please help:) Dave Begin Original Message From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:06:06 -0500 (EST) To: Pentax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Note to the Brother hood Aaron would like you all to know that if you choose to get a *istD

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread Bill D. Casselberry
Peter Alling wrote: Easy 450mm 35mm equivalent. But then I think you knew that. but that is 17mm relative to 24mm for 35mm frame - wouldn't that then be 17mm relative to 56mm of the 6x7 a bit over a 3x magnification by cropping factor ? Bill

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread Bill D. Casselberry
William Robb wrote: Its still a 300mm, just a big ass one. 450mm f/4 equivalent though, aint too shabby, and it's a darned good lens. No tripod mount though. Gotta make one for it. but (I may be wrong, of course), that 300mm FOV is spread over the 56x69mm 6x7 frame. the tiny

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread William Robb
- Original Message - From: Bill D. Casselberry Subject: Re: Note to the Brother hood William Robb wrote: Its still a 300mm, just a big ass one. 450mm f/4 equivalent though, aint too shabby, and it's a darned good lens. No tripod mount though. Gotta make one for it. but (I may

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread Bill D. Casselberry
William Robb wrote: Since equivalancy seems to be the confusing part, lets base the comparison on the 35mm field of view, as easy to relate to. The 300mm focal length on the 6x7 sees the same field of view (more or less) as a 150mm lens does on 35mm. Boing! Forgot to disegard

Re: Note to the Brother hood

2003-02-28 Thread William Robb
- Original Message - From: Bill D. Casselberry Subject: Re: Note to the Brother hood I guess my 6x7 is becoming the norm in my internal photo-reckoning - not really thinking much in 35mm terms any more.!8^D I can relate to that. William Robb