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 :(
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!
- 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
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
- 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
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,
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
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
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
- 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
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
- 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
12 matches
Mail list logo