On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote: > >> I still don't see the big deal of FF. >> >> I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent, >> etc, but just do what I do. >> >> I step back a bit.:-) > > The idiocy is that a 24mm lens is *always* a 24mm lens. The focal length > only defines a field of view in the context of a format definition.
I know that, was just trying to be funny :-) Dave > > I see nothing particularly special about so-called "full frame" ... > personally, I always thought 2:3 proportions were too oblong anyway. I'd > rather have 4:5 or 3:4 proportion formats. > > I guess 6x4.5 isn't "full frame" either ... I mean, after all, there're > 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm roll film. And many > of those cameras can share lenses. Which of them is "full frame", I > wonder... ? > > Godfrey > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
