Adam Maas wrote: >ann sanfedele wrote: > > >>notice how I cleverly avoided mentioning my little bastard camera... >> >>but seriously, folks - It took me a few beats too long to realize that a >>28mm smc Pentax lens on a >>35 mm digital camera changes it to a less wide lens -- and, I'm >>guessing, the bit of space between the >>back of the lens and the camera itself, due to the thickness of the >>adaptor also contributes to this. >> >>Soooo is there a chart somewhere or a formula that says 28 becomes >>50(?) etc ??? >>Does the difference/ proportion increase with the physical length of the >>lens? >> >>My 100mm macro seems like a 200 mm lens - so I'm really in pig heaven.... >> >>It seems like the 28 mm still has the same depth of field given any >>given aperature when it is >>on the KX or the digital camera.... >> >>ann the curious >> >> >> > >The conversion is 1.6 times for the small Canon bodies, so take your 28, >multiply by 1.6 and you have the equivalent in 35mm terms (Which is 45mm >or so). And it's all because the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame of >film, not because of the space the adaptor takes up. > >The conversion applies to all lenses and doesn't change. And it doesn't >affect DoF, it's really just like a crop out of the centre of the 35mm >frame. > >-Adam > > Adam - good answer good answer! :) just what i wanted to know... thanks, luv
ann > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
