I'm mostly view-camera illiterate, so I'm sure a more informed voice
could chime in here, but I'm seeing that maximum coverage is
achieved on some lenses only when stopped down significantly. On a
camera with rise, swing and tilt capability, I'm guessing that
maximum coverage could only be
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
stunning image.
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
stunning image.
From: Tom C
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
stunning
: FILM shot wins Pop Photo contest
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award
Learned something today. Never even heard of plasmats before.
That (winning) shot looks FAR wider (to my eyes) than a 24mm on a 35mm
film camera.
I was looking at the specs and comparing the field of view it gives to
the equiv. focal length with similar field of view on a 35mm.
Not sure if that's
I don't know the answer to your question. But I am curious about one thing in
your note - when others talk about FOV, I have always visualized the horizontal
coverage as the issue. I just looked at Wikipedia for FOV info and they point
out that (of course!) you can measure the FOV horizontally,
I'm mostly view-camera illiterate, so I'm sure a more informed voice
could chime in here, but I'm seeing that maximum coverage is
achieved on some lenses only when stopped down significantly. On a
camera with rise, swing and tilt capability, I'm guessing that
maximum coverage could only be
I should add that FOV is really only a perfect comparison to use when
comparing similar ratio rectangles (or other shape). It's not just a
function of the lens but the image circle crop.
With that in mind some adjustment would be needed to strictly compare
a 4x5 (or similar ration 8x10) view
On 26/12/2011 10:04 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
I'm mostly view-camera illiterate, so I'm sure a more informed voice
could chime in here, but I'm seeing that maximum coverage is
achieved on some lenses only when stopped down significantly. On a
camera with rise, swing and tilt capability, I'm
Actually a lot of the newer lenses don't get much in the way of extra coverage
as they are stopped down wheras some of the older designs get a huge amount.
The difficulty is defining coverage, since a lot of the older lenses get very
soft at the edges. In some cases older examples of the same
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
stunning image.
Darren
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 09:52:56AM -0600, Darren Addy wrote:
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to
On Dec 24, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film
on 2011-12-24 12:14 Larry Colen wrote
I'm puzzled by the comment on the next photo:
Tech Specs: Canon PowerShot G9 (at 35mm equivalent); exposure, 1/1000 sec at
f/4, ISO 80.
What do they mean 35mm equivalent exposure? Are seconds faster on compact
cameras?
i think they meant 35mm
On Dec 24, 2011, at 11:42 AM, steve harley wrote:
on 2011-12-24 12:14 Larry Colen wrote
I'm puzzled by the comment on the next photo:
Tech Specs: Canon PowerShot G9 (at 35mm equivalent); exposure, 1/1000 sec at
f/4, ISO 80.
What do they mean 35mm equivalent exposure? Are seconds faster
on 2011-12-24 12:56 Larry Colen wrote
On Dec 24, 2011, at 11:42 AM, steve harley wrote:
on 2011-12-24 12:14 Larry Colen wrote
I'm puzzled by the comment on the next photo:
Tech Specs: Canon PowerShot G9 (at 35mm equivalent); exposure, 1/1000 sec at
f/4, ISO 80.
What do they mean 35mm
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
stunning image.
Darren
18 matches
Mail list logo
