Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Figuring out depth of field with 4/3 adaptor

Subject: [OM] Re: Figuring out depth of field with 4/3 adaptor
From: "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:45:22 +0100
But the "greater enlargement" was there in the beginning, in that the
original question was about use of OM lenses on E-1 camera - that is full
frame lens on a smaller 'negative' size.  Thus you *would* need greater
enlargement (than from an OM) to get your 10x8.  QED! 

--
Piers 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walt Wayman
Sent: 27 March 2005 23:52
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Figuring out depth of field with 4/3 adaptor

Ah, but now you've injected the notion of "greater enlargement."  That's a
different ballgame.  Carried to its extreme, DOF becomes practically
non-existant.  I can blow up a 6x9cm Provia 100F tranny enough so that
anything not in the plane of exact prime focus starts to get soft and fuzzy.
DOF can cover up for only so much nearly in focus stuff, and it is strictly
governed by the law of diminishing returns.

You have to live with what you start with, and if you have a little thing in
the beginning, you can't expect to have a big thing in the end.

Walt

--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Michael R. Collins" <michael789@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >I thought what we were talking about was photographs made with the 
> >same focal length lens, the difference being whether the full image 
> >was captured, as a full-frame camera would do, or just the center, as 
> >in a half-frame or 4:3 digital camera.
> 
> I didn't save the original post, I'll have to wait 'til the morning to 
> fetch it from the list archive, but... I thought (perhaps
> mistakenly) that we were talking about an OM lens on an E-1 with 
> adapter, and whether its DoF markings [originally calculated for 35mm 
> film format] were useful, with or without conversion factor. If that's 
> the case, I still claim the DoF is different for a same-size print 
> (i.e., greater enlargement from the 4:3). Apologies if my short-term 
> memory is faulty :-( .
> 
> Michael
> --
> Michael R. Collins  ...  Michael.Collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Toronto, 
> Ontario, Canada
> 
>
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz