Well, of *course* you see a difference there. The *ist-D has a smaller sensor, so you see just what you would see if you cropped the 35mm frame down to the size of the *ist-D sensor.
That's not what we are discussing. We're comparing what you would see if you had a 200mm lens on your *ist-D, as compared to the PZ-1 with a 300mm lens, from the same viewpoint. If you've got a 200mm, try it - you'll get the same framing on the *ist-D as the 300mm gave you on the PZ-1. [EMAIL PROTECTED] mused: > > > John said > > > > If you see something significantly different through the viewfinders > > of a *ist-D with a 35mm and an MZ with a 50mm, it's probably because > > you're starting off with pre-concieved expectations based on the focal > > length, not because of any real-world differences. > > (I chose the MZ bodies, rather than an MX/LX, because they're a lot > > closer to the digitals in terms of image area in the viewfinder). > > I didi a comparison with my new to me Sigma 300 f4. I put it on my PZ-1 and > sighted an > object across > my street, a roof top with side chimney and secondary chimney. I positioned > the lens so > that i had the > chimney and roof top and all of the wood stove chimney in view. > I then put it on the istD and i lost the wood stove chimney and a bit of the > roof on that > side. > Not sure if its due to any magnification differences in the finders or, > WYSIWYG. > > Dave > > > > > > Shel Belinkoff mused: > > > > > > I'm just going to have to see this for myself. I've not yet made the > > > side-by-side comparison, just observed various scenes through the finders > > > and thru pics from different cameras. Of course, we don't always use > > > "smallish" prints or only web oriented images. Implied (to me, at least) > > > in your comment is that differences will be more noticeable in larger > > > sized > > > prints or images. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: John Francis > > > > > > > > >This also answers a question about comparative focal lengths on a > > > > > >film > > > and > > > > > >digi SLR. Using the 18mm on Bruce's istD didn't seem to give the > > > > > >same > > > view > > > > > >as when using a 28mm on a film body. While the AOV may have been > > > similar, > > > > > >there seemed to be a different perspective. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I have noticed something similar when I was using a 1.6 crop > > > > > digi. > > > > > The effect is less pronounced with a 1.3 crop, but at price. I guess > > > > > in > > > 5 > > > > > years or so when there are a few more (affordable) full frame digis > > > > > around, it will be less of an issue.... > > > > > > > > It's not an issue now. Really! > > > > > > > > Imagine you are standing at a fixed spot, photographing a given subject. > > > > An 18mm on the *ist-D, a 28mm on a 35mm, or a 50mm on a 6x7 will produce > > > > images that are, as far as composition and framing are concerned, > > > identical > > > > (except for the different aspect ratio of the 6x7, of course). > > > > > > > > > > > > If I showed you a small-ish print or image from each one (say a 3x5 > > > > print, > > > > or a 600x400 image) you would have no way of telling which came from > > > > which > > > > camera. > > > > > > > > > > > >
