P. J. Alling wrote: >Just for you. OK so I shared this with the list a few days ago. It >should work on your machine. Let me know if it doesn't. > >http://www.mindspring.com/~happydogsoftware/AOVCalc.zip > >
Why is it a .zip if it is just a link? That looks like someplace I don't want to go, actually. (paranoid? yes) Read back a few posts and you will see Adam and Mark Cassino answered my question. that was about as much math as I could handle :) but thanks for the thought ann >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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- 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.
