on the basis of the depth of field markings I'd say it's a 35.

It's certainly not the 55, as it's hyperfocal distance at f/16 should be about 4.9m, which isn't even marked on that distance scale.

no question in my mind it's a wide angle.

it's actually how almost all zooms, constant aperture and not, work.

'Constant' aperture is actually a misnomer, it should be 'constant f number'.

The original reason for constant aperture zooms is one of ease of use. When the aperture was controled by an aperture ring on the lens it could be ambiguous what aperture you had actually set unless you were at one end of the range or the other. A constant aperture zoom meant that if you set f/5.6 you would get f/5.6 at any zoom setting.

With auto aperture control from the body you always get the aperture you ask for anyway (at least with modern lenses, some early A type zooms always report as if at their widest setting), and it has become more about offering the widest opening possible throughout the range.

I came across that Toms Hardware review last week, it's pretty comprehensive if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Of course, if speed is really what you want at the cost of all else then there can be only one choice.

Lynx is your friend.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser))

I like the blured version, beautiful creatures!

I've been fully Linux powered since Vista came out, actually I think Vista did more to further the cause of Linux on the desktop than anything else in recent times. I know several people who switched to Linux to avoid Windoze Vista.

I switched partly for that reason and partly to unify my OSs across all my PCs. All three of them (netbook laptop and desktop) now run Ubuntu linux with more or less the same software installed. Means I can do anything on any one of them, just takes a little longer on the netbook.

7 looks much nicer, but of the bits and pieces they advertise on the TV about 90% are lifted straight from KDE or Gnome (linux graphical user interfaces). M$ wouldn't know an original idea if it bit them on the backside.

in that case the Sigma 30mm F1.4 might be more useful to you

looks like it rather undercuts it on sensor specs too, 22MP only

this does look like it could get interesting.

ahh I see what you're saying, good point.

42000/26 = ~1600 read noise size steps, which would make 12bit (4096 levels) more than enough.

It seems to me that it's still worthwhile to oversample somewhat beyond the size of the noise, after all when you're plotting a graph you don't quantise to the error bar size. There probably isn't a lot of benefit in going much beyond say 10 quanta per error bar size though (this is semi-educated guesswork, feel free to disagree) which just happens to be roughly 14bit = ~16000 steps.

So there's a theoretical benefit in going to 16 bit since you should be able to hold enough electrons per photosite to justify it, but the level of noise present in the sensor means there probably isn't much point.


I wonder if this exact discussion took place in the Pentax engineering dept a year or so ago....

but the best idea is always the simple one,

Einstein said something like "any inteligent fool can make something more complex, it takes bravery and a touch of genius to move in the oposite direction"

The technology you linked to has the apparent potential to make large format sensors much cheaper. That could really bring larger formats into the hands of whoever wants them.

Remember the days when an off brand SLR was £100 brand new body only? they could come again!

thanks for the link, that's a facinating idea, will be interesting to see how it develops!