The viewfinder image has a bit to do with this as well. I can't say for sure
why other manufactures changed from 55mm to 50mm lenses as standard normal
but heres an exercise that owners of both a MX and a SP-F can do. (I think
this should also work with an esII, KM, KX K1000 and possibly
'The binocular thing' depends on how the finder is designed (what percentage of
the film format the finder covers and with what magnification it displays its
image to the eye).
The MX has the highest magnification (0,97x) of all Pentax SLRs (AFAIK) so even
though the 50 is more 'wide angle' than
This sounds right to me. One of the reasons I like
the K 55mm f1.8 is that, on the KX, the eye in the
viewfinder sees things at exactly the same magnification
as the other eye. Put a 50mm lens on the KX, and this
is no longer true.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My
that the subject is not
beyound the flash's reach.
Does this help?
William Robb wrote:
From: Charlton Vaughan
Subject: Camera size and lens size.
Hi group,
Since I'm a (what I consider) a novice at photography, I don't do this
professionally, I really am not knowledgeable about terms, etc.,
My
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size.
The funny thing is you guys seem to think photography started with 35mm
SLRs. Nope, it started back in the mid-eighteen-hundreds and most of the
rules of thumb you
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size.
Go hunt up an Olympus Auto Eye II, which had a D. Zuiko f/2.5 43mm lens.
Olympus had a _slew_ of 40mm, 45 and 48mm lenses during that time, but
did have one 43mm...
keith whaley
J. C
: Camera size and lens size.
Go hunt up an Olympus Auto Eye II, which had a D. Zuiko f/2.5 43mm lens.
Olympus had a _slew_ of 40mm, 45 and 48mm lenses during that time, but
did have one 43mm...
keith whaley
Paul Ewins wrote:
If I
used a 105mm lens with one of the cheap flashes with a fixed 35mm
coverage then most of the power of the flash would be used
illuminating things outside the actual photo!
Which might not be that wrong. When zooming the flash one gaines a longer
reach fot illumination -
Bill wrote:
Pentax SF10
WR I have no idea if the AF360FGZ is compatable with that camera or not. At
WR some point, Pentax went with full digital flash to camera communication, so
According to the 360FGZ manual it is. It sports all modes except for
high speed sync and wireless control, just
50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what
Barnack used on the first Leica.
The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the
negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because
that was the cheapest lens that would give satisfactory
Anders Hultman wrote:
Keith Whaley:
Very simply stated,
[...]
Simple, huh? g
Kinda simple... I've long known that 50mm is considered normal or
standard but not really why that was so. It's because it matches
the film size, then?
Closely matches, anyhow. The best fit is, of
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size.
50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what
Barnack used on the first Leica.
The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the
negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because
graywolf wrote:
50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what
Barnack used on the first Leica.
Quite possibly true. Old Oskar did a lot of good things for
miniaturizing photography.
The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the
negative was
J. C. O'Connell wrote, quoting Graywolf, who wrote:
50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that
is what Barnack used on the first Leica.
The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the
negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because
Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we
talk about cameras that in their times 45mm was considered normal.
.True. The historical reason behind why 35mm film normal lens has
.become 50mm instead of staying at 43mm (or 45mm) is out there somewhere,
.but I can't
A lot of other things affect that perspective. The focal length of the
lens has something to do with it but not as much as most folk think. To
give an idea, if you take a 35mm photo with a 100mm lens and make a
5x7.5 print and view the print at 10 inches then the perspective you see
is exactly
So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have been
written over the years about many things because they sounded good,
then repeated over and over without thought. I can prove that focal
length has little to do with perspective. Can you prove tha ecomonics
has little to
graywolf wrote:
So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have been
written over the years about many things because they sounded good,
then repeated over and over without thought. I can prove that focal
length has little to do with perspective.
Actually, it never
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 6:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size.
graywolf wrote:
So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have
In addition, 50+ mm lenses would mount with the rear element
in front of the moving mirror without the need for retro focus
optical designs.
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:46:47 -0400
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the reason they went to 58/55/50 was that
these focal lengths
Oh, I believe you. I've tested it grossly for myself. Somewhere in there
is the true lifesize viewfinder image.
But, certainly one choice must stick out as being the most accurate
choice, no?
Let's see. 58mm. Yeah, that will work.
'Some time later' someone said, Nope, 55mm is really better. More
What does it mean to cover a 28mm lens?
It means that the output from the flash is spread wide enough to cover
the angle of view of a 28mm lens. It will also cover lenses with a
narrower angle of view, i.e. 35mm, 50mm etc.
Most cheap flashes have a fixed area that they cover, typically
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Flash Coverage - was Camera size and lens size.
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:47:42 -0700
What does it mean to cover a 28mm lens?
It means that the output from the flash is spread wide enough to cover
the angle of view
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Charlton Vaughan wrote:
lens, another (Takumar) says it's a 55-58mm lens. I was looking at the
Pentax Flash AF360FGZ listed on the Pentax website that someone referred me
to. The flash is listed as covering a 28mm. What does it mean to cover
a 28mm lens? Does this
Hi, Charles,
First of all, I don't know flashes at all, so I can't help you out with model
numbers and that sort of thing.
But, I can try to answer your question about a flash covering a 28mm lens.
Now, you've got an SLR. It's got a lens on it. I'm not sure what you mean by
55-58 mm lens -
Just to add to Franks post regarding telephotos. Normal lenses are around
50mm or 1 power, so a 200mm would be 4 power (actually 4.65, but we won`t
go there).
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
At the other end of the scale is a telephoto lens. That's like putting
a
telescope on your
Hi again, Charlton,
Not that I want to beat a dead horse, but...
Looking at your original post again, I wonder if your not a bit confused about
camera format and lens size (focal length), since in the case of your camera,
they're both expressed in millimetres.
When one says that a camera
Hi, Steve,
What about 1000 mm? vbg
cheers,
frank
Steve Larson wrote:
Just to add to Franks post regarding telephotos. Normal lenses are around
50mm or 1 power, so a 200mm would be 4 power (actually 4.65, but we won`t
go there).
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
--
Honour - that
: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size.
Hi, Steve,
What about 1000 mm? vbg
cheers,
frank
Steve Larson wrote:
Just to add to Franks post regarding telephotos. Normal lenses are
around
Har!
Geez, Steve, the wooden tripod and lens together must weigh, what, about 50
pounds? Could I have that to at least 30 decimal places please? g
cheers,
frank
Steve Larson wrote:
23.255813953488372093023255813953 power! You know I dragged that
thing for over 2300 miles on our vacation
Hi Kostas,
Thanks for the info and the link to the site regarding flash types. That
was a great site. Very informative. Thank you. Okay, here is another
question. I was taking a shot of my father in his woodworking shop. There
was flourescent lighting. The lowlighting alert came on inside
Steve Larson:
Just to add to Franks post regarding telephotos. Normal lenses are around
50mm or 1 power, so a 200mm would be 4 power (actually 4.65, but we won`t
go there).
How is this power figure calculated, and what is it used for?
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
Very simply stated, Anders, the longest dimension of a film's frame size
rectangle is what the cone of light that passes thru a standard lens has
to cover.
The 35mm (or 135mm) film useable frame dimensions, where the image
appears, are 24mm x 36mm.
The diagonal of that rectangle is just a teeny
Hi group,
Since I'm a (what I consider) a novice at photography, I don't do this
professionally, I really am not knowledgeable about terms, etc.,
My camera is an SLR, or what I've always thought of as a 35mm camera, one of
the lens that act as a regular lens with limited macro says it's a 58mm
- Original Message -
From: Charlton Vaughan
Subject: Camera size and lens size.
Hi group,
Since I'm a (what I consider) a novice at photography, I don't do this
professionally, I really am not knowledgeable about terms, etc.,
My camera is an SLR, or what I've always thought
Pentax SF10
If I had wanted to put up with high maintenance I would have married a
primadonna with a Harley.
www.geocities.com/siarlbychan
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size.
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003
36 matches
Mail list logo
