It's my web site, and I wrote the program. It's safe. ann sanfedele wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > >
-- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- 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.
