Alex wrote: > What suggests to me that your method is wrong is that it would give > me a narrower depth of field than 35mm (using an equivelent lens). > I know from practice (using a prosumer digital camera with a 1 2/3" > sensor) that this isn't the case.
Alex, we are discussing using lenses designed for 35mm on smaller sensor here. Using lenses specifically designed for the smaller sensor (and their smaller circle of confusion as a design parameter) will be a very different matter, so your experience with digital cameras having their own fixed lens is not relevant to this discussion. Using medium format lenses on 35mm cameras will be relevant to this discussion. Has anybody noticed that USUALLY the most acclaimed medium format lenses are just good glass when used on 35mm? This can be a very similar case to look at. However, my point was another. Apart from depth of field and lens performance on a smaller format (which other DLSR's also have to deal with), I've got the impression that most pictures taken with the *ist D are worse than you could expect from a good 6Mpix DSLR, and more and more pictures are confirming such an impression. However, as I wrote before, next weekend I'm going to compare it to the S2 Pro (same subjects in same conditions with comparable lenses), so I'll hopefully have my answer. Yes, I'm going to publish comparison pictures somewhere and I'll acknowledge you. If I'll conclude that the *ist D is approaching the S2 with similar lenses, I'll be very very happy. Dario
