aha! as I thought! (and so recently )

This does back up the theory that buildings do not get bigger (or move) between the recce and the final tripod set up

I guess it the logic of the people who make the lenses v the logic of using them - just quirky enough to confuse you.

Thanks John!

Thanks folks (I put a response on this, but it disappeared somewhere. Try again...)

I realise now (belatedly, and thanks to the responses/docs in this thread) that some (all?) manufacturers - including Pentax and Sigma - use the DIAGONAL for the angle of view spec.

This probably makes sense for Medium Format as the size/shape of the image size can change (6x7, 645, etc etc - also makes sense if you went to art school and take funky slanted horizons, or prefer headless horse pictures ).

Anyways, I now have the means to update my measurements for 35mm and APS-C - just need to rework my Px67, because I reckon the ones I have are diags too ('square on the hypotenuse' rings a bell; I'll look it u on Wiki).

So if you notice someone wandering about between 10 and 2 with a protactor (possibly wearing shiney shoes) I'll be back at some point with the right lens and wearing boots )

Thanks very much
This is a good site (but a weird one!) and it may explain why I'm have got confused info before - WHY would anyone need to know what the diagonal AOV was?

Reason for the question is, of course, that I use film and a 1.5 crop, plus some other lenses, and it's easier to recce with a protractor and a note book and come back when the light might be good, with the right lenses....

update - sorry the 24mm is SMC not 'M'

I have a small collection of SMC M lenses, but can't find any info on angle of view for them on the web. Possibly it exists in the catalogues of the time (which I don't have)
Does anyone have angle of view for SMC M:
24mm f2.8
28mm f3.5
50mm f1.7
135mm f3.5

.. before I get the matchsticks, the blue tack and the protractor out?

Thanks!

I have a Pentax 67 and recently bought a Waist Level Finder, however I have problems with light reflections on the screen and (in this Canikon digital age ) don't really want to wear a towel over my head.

I do have a Seagull angle finder (to use with my other kit) and had heard that the Nikon round adaptor would fit the Pentax 67.

Anyone know?

Appreciated!

(I wrote a response to this but it got lost somewhere I think).
Yes, no built-in redundancy is good for us;
I have three 20-40 year old Pentax' (ME/MZ/67) that still work
I have not needed to buy any new lenses - what I had are excellent
When I bought my K10 I only bought the body (because I had lenses already).
So they've had £500 from me in 20 years. Canon 'fans' pay that every year
I'm hoping some Hoya money might be put into more lenses too.... 6FA's against 20 D's doesn't seem fair (might put one of those 'Limiteds' on the list though )

Full frame - don't disagree - although a 'me-too' full frame might just help in the hype stakes (perhaps with some big white lenses?) and might be transferable to a MF/LF "Pentelblad"

Live view - would get on my nerves (either looking at it or just paying for it!)

Pentax' biggest marketing problem is the don't change the lens fittings often enough - no built in redundancy; they only sell things once

Got it in one; I don't fancy doing at all!
(I'll ring them tomorrow.....)

Thanks

How about a full frame sensor, and some full frame lenses (the Hoya connection?)