Hi,

yes there is. The focal lengths on the DA range of lenses is still marked up at the 35mm equivalent, so you can just x1.5 for every lens you come across.

Cheers
Liam

Hi Daniel,

if that's about if you get enough monkeys, they'll be able to type the complete works of Shakespeare eventually.. it can be done theoretically.. except you'd need more monkeys than there are atoms in the universe, and more time than the universe is likely to be around. ***

To be exact, a lens can't actually focus to infinity, by definition, as it's an infinite distance. The two outer lines (as seen in focussing diagrams) would to all intents and purposes be running parallel, and hence would never acheive a point at which they converge giving a focussing distance.

Yes I'm a nerd.

Cheers

Liam

*** I can dig out the figures if you want.

Hi Steve, (again with ??)

you might want to look at this article about the hyperfocal distance of lenses..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance

There's a lot of maths there which you may or may not want to skip through..

As a general rule of thumb, to get the best overall front to back sharpness in an image, you need to focus around a third of the way into the landscape. (I'm waiting for the rest of you to tell me I got that wrong.. I usually do)..

Also, this might help both you and others new to photography..

http://www.dofmaster.com/

It's a Depth Of Field calculator. From what I can see ( I only found the link earlier) you download the file (free), and print off the dials; pin them together, then just turn the dials to the parameters of the lens, aperture etc to calculate DOF.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Liam

Hi,

how about the SMC Pentax-F 100-300..

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pentax-F-SMC-100-300mm-1-4-5-5-6-Zoom-SLR-Lens_W0QQitemZ11...

(the link is just an example.. mine cost around £50 off of ebay)

I think it's a pretty good lens, and almost always carry it with me, whatever else I might take.

Cheers

Liam

Hi Pygmy,

have a go with Neat Image. There is a freeware version, and it appears to be pretty good at cleaning up noise and other artifacts when shooting at high(er) ISOs. It's recommended by people here, in fact I think Matt submitted the profiles for the D.

Cheers

Liam

That's strange Matt, they do here. Perhaps the server dropped out while you were here last?? I only changed the file name for the first image from 4 to 5, so the second one should show anyway. Perhaps the server dropped out while you were here last??

Can everyone see them now?

Cheers

Liam

The computer works okay.. it's just at a disadvantage of having me driving it!!

It's changed now anyway. The beauty of doing these things in Word, is that you don't have to remember to save in the native .psd or .xcf (GIMP) formats, as .doc saves it as "layers" anyway.

Cheers

Liam

Hi Matt,

it did say tat on the first one I posted.. but for some reason I changed it????

I'll change it later on.. just off to work now.

Cheers

Liam

Hi Peter,

I don't know if that's the official term, but it seems to be the prefered phrase for a lot of users here, and as I was illustrating the point specifically for this board I used it..

I do see what you mean though; if a 50% crop reduces the image by 1/2 then a 100% crop should reduce the image to nothing.. :

Cheers

Liam

Hi all,

I thought I'd knock this up to help.




in the above image, the larger (shaded) area relates to the size of the 35mm film plane, and the smaller area in the middle relates to the size of the digital sensor in comparison.

(And no pedantry points for noticing I got the depth of the sensor wrong in relation to it's width.. by the time I'd noticed, I'd already done most of it.. )




The above will be the two images, at a 100% crop.

Hope that helps..

Cheers

Liam