Hi guys,
interesting discussion here, but there's an interesting article about DOF of
a digital camera
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/index.html
sorry if it's been posted before.
BTW, this is kinda my introduction post to the list. Been lurking for a
couples of month, and i'm from Indonesia, that's right guys :) (i know
indonesian isn't very popular on the web *sigh*)... but at least here's one
that started to become a zuikoholic... is that a good thing? :)
I got a OM-4 and couples of zuiko lenses, and couples of question for you
guys, but that's for another post i guess... so this is all for now, and
sorry for my english.
regards from Indonesia,
Radix
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
> Perhaps someone would explain to me why the DOF would be any different
from what the scale on the lens indicates. It's still a 24mm lens, and just
because it's on a digital whatzis that captures only the central portion of
the projected image, making the FOV equivalent to a 48mm lens on a real --
excuse me -- on a film camera, shouldn't change the DOF. Should it? Would
it? Does it?
>
> If I duct tape my 150/5.6 Schneider Symmar to the proper extension tube
combination and attach it to an OM body, the DOF in the little-bitty bit I
capture on 35mm film would be the same as the DOF in that same central
portion on a 4x5 in. piece of film.
>
> Please show me the error in my thinking and give two examples.
>
> Walt, using an analog analogy
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|