A Nevada site may be more accessible in winter though.
Plus you have Valley of Fire State Park (north of Las Vegas) & Red Rocks
(west of Las Vegas).
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: OT:
From: Tom C
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
8x10 film
And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
a full frame 35mm.
And clearly post-processed (very well).
Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
stunning i
> http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
>
> 8x10 film
> And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
> a full frame 35mm.
> And clearly post-processed (very well).
>
> Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
> stunning
> http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
>
> 8x10 film
> And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
> a full frame 35mm.
> And clearly post-processed (very well).
>
> Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
> stunning
>I'm mostly view-camera illiterate, so I'm sure a more informed voice
>could chime in here, but I'm seeing that "maximum coverage" is
>achieved on some lenses only when stopped down significantly. On a
>camera with rise, swing and tilt capability, I'm guessing that
>"maximum coverage" could only be
Actually a lot of the newer lenses don't get much in the way of extra coverage
as they are stopped down wheras some of the older designs get a huge amount.
The difficulty is defining coverage, since a lot of the older lenses get very
soft at the edges. In some cases older examples of the same d
On 26/12/2011 10:04 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
I'm mostly view-camera illiterate, so I'm sure a more informed voice
could chime in here, but I'm seeing that "maximum coverage" is
achieved on some lenses only when stopped down significantly. On a
camera with rise, swing and tilt capability, I'm guessi
I should add that FOV is really only a perfect comparison to use when
comparing similar ratio rectangles (or other shape). It's not just a
function of the lens but the image circle "crop".
With that in mind some adjustment would be needed to strictly compare
a 4x5 (or similar ration 8x10) view cam
I'm mostly view-camera illiterate, so I'm sure a more informed voice
could chime in here, but I'm seeing that "maximum coverage" is
achieved on some lenses only when stopped down significantly. On a
camera with rise, swing and tilt capability, I'm guessing that
"maximum coverage" could only be achi
I don't know the answer to your question. But I am curious about one thing in
your note - when others talk about FOV, I have always visualized the horizontal
coverage as the issue. I just looked at Wikipedia for FOV info and they point
out that (of course!) you can measure the FOV horizontally,
Learned something today. Never even heard of plasmats before.
That (winning) shot looks FAR wider (to my eyes) than a 24mm on a 35mm
film camera.
I was looking at the specs and comparing the field of view it gives to
the equiv. focal length with similar field of view on a 35mm.
Not sure if that's
>http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
>
>8x10 film
>And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
>a full frame 35mm.
>And clearly post-processed (very well).
>
>Still, I'm happy to see a film shot get such an award. And it is a
>stunning image.
on 2011-12-24 12:56 Larry Colen wrote
On Dec 24, 2011, at 11:42 AM, steve harley wrote:
on 2011-12-24 12:14 Larry Colen wrote
I'm puzzled by the comment on the next photo:
Tech Specs: Canon PowerShot G9 (at 35mm equivalent); exposure, 1/1000 sec at
f/4, ISO 80.
What do they mean 35mm equiva
On Dec 24, 2011, at 11:42 AM, steve harley wrote:
> on 2011-12-24 12:14 Larry Colen wrote
>> I'm puzzled by the comment on the next photo:
>> Tech Specs: Canon PowerShot G9 (at 35mm equivalent); exposure, 1/1000 sec at
>> f/4, ISO 80.
>>
>> What do they mean 35mm equivalent exposure? Are secon
on 2011-12-24 12:14 Larry Colen wrote
I'm puzzled by the comment on the next photo:
Tech Specs: Canon PowerShot G9 (at 35mm equivalent); exposure, 1/1000 sec at
f/4, ISO 80.
What do they mean 35mm equivalent exposure? Are seconds faster on compact
cameras?
i think they meant 35mm equivalent
On Dec 24, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
> http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
>
> 8x10 film
> And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
> a full frame 35mm.
> And clearly post-processed (very well).
>
> Still, I'm happy to see a
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 09:52:56AM -0600, Darren Addy wrote:
> http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/18th-annual-readers-photo-contest
>
> 8x10 film
> And a $2700 lens that is the equiv. of the Pentax 15mm rectilinear on
> a full frame 35mm.
> And clearly post-processed (very well).
>
> Still, I'm happ
17 matches
Mail list logo
