Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 4:19:13 AM, Mark wrote:
MC Thanks Frantisek. I'll definitely look into those - they have to be
MC shorter than 24mm to work , but now that you mention it, I think John Shaw
MC talks about those in one of his books.
MC - MCC
There is plenty such lenses on
Thanks Frantisek. I'll definitely look into those - they have to be
shorter than 24mm to work , but now that you mention it, I think John Shaw
talks about those in one of his books.
- MCC
Mark,
have you considered using a movie/16mm/8mm/video prime
in front of your CP950? These
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Kent Gittings wrote:
I think you are missing some info. The chip in the Dimage 7 is the same one
that is in the Nikon D-1x which is 5.24 MP and 23.7mm x 15.6mm. It's a
matter of semantics.
When you see a CCD array listed as 2/3 inch it doesn't refer to the actual
size
Jos,
I would say the manufacturer can program such information about the
geometric distortion into the lens, so it would be transferred to the camera
while using it, just like we have now with other lens data.
Frits Wüthrich from the UK at the moment.
Jos from Holland wrote:
I see some more
I would say the manufacturer can program such information about the
geometric distortion into the lens, so it would be transferred to the
camera
while using it, just like we have now with other lens data.
Frits Wüthrich from the UK at the moment.
Good point, Frits, but an (additional)adjustment
On 8 Dec 2001 at 17:51, Jos from Holland wrote:
I see some more opportunities for small CCD cameras. What about the (much)
larger D.O.F.? I did not see much discussion about this point. For some time
I thought that the larger D.O.F of smaller CCD size was a disadvantage for
digital
I totally agree that the enhance D.O.F. of small format digitals is a boon
in macro photography. It opens up whole new creative possibilities. But,
for every door that opens another closes - the ability to employ a narrow
DOF in portraits, for instance, is not present. I've tried creating
, December 06, 2001 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Implications for optics WAS: New Pentax digital SLR
Kent G. wrote:
I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same
aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody
settles on 1.3x or 1.6x
Kent G. wrote:
I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same
aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody
settles on 1.3x or 1.6x remains to be seen.
Kents,
I know you're agreeing with ME here so for me to agree right back again is
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent G. wrote:
I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same
aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody
settles on 1.3x or 1.6x remains to be seen.
Kents,
I know you're agreeing with ME here so
10 matches
Mail list logo
