Afraid not. At first I thought it might be the Bank of England or the Royal Exchange, but on closer inspection of a map, it must be (or was) closer the where the Gherkin stands today.

I think your mystery building is (was) 20 Fenchurch Street. Used to be occupied by Kleinwort Benson.

Built 1963-1968 Demolished 2007-2008

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/picturedisplay.php?ref=121&idi=20+Fenchurch+Street...

http://postwarbuildings.com/buildings/20-fenchurch-street

Well, they stopped producing the FA* lenses around 10 years ago, coinciding with the move into digital SLR manufacture, and obviously efforts went into new lenses aimed specifically at the new technology.

I am lucky to own the FA*24mm and FA*85mm. They dont get as much use as they should, but it still feels like a special occasion when clip one of those onto the camera!

Lovely pictures..... but then I am biased, I love my MINI.

Phillip, I remember a good discussion on this subject a few years back on Digital Photography Review.

To understand DOF you must understand that it originally related to a given print size enlarged from a negative. We can now refer to a print size or screen image, but the relevance is still the same...it is about what the eye can discern when looking at a finished image.

The reason the calculators give a smaller DOF on digital crop sensors compared to full frame for the same lens/aperture/distance, is that the sensor image needs to be enlarged more than the full frame to achieve the same size final image (print). The more you enlarge, the narrower DOF becomes.

So you are correct to assume that the DOF markings on a 35mm film lens are not accurate for digital use. You would need to stop down more than the lens indicated to achieve the same DOF.

.........However.......

As John and others have pointed out, the two different formats do not produce the same image. For a portrait shot for example to be the same size in the frame, you would need to stand further back when using the same lens on a crop sensor. The increase in camera to subject distance will increase the DOF, largely offsetting what will be lost by having to enlarge the sensor image more than with the full frame image.

I am still around.

Not posted anything for ages. I was made redundant last July and had six months rest. I thought i would be doing loads of photography, but in fact got caught up with some other projects and have not taken many photos in the last year.

I started a new job in February, and have been very busy, so I havn't got round to sorting out photos from our trip to Cuba in January.

When i do i will post.

Best wishes to all.

A quality lens will always be a quality lens irrespective of whether it is used on digital or film. When it comes to manual focus I have yet find any modern lens that is a patch on the "K" and M series

There are some issues... lens coatings are more relevant when using digital cameras compared to film, and for this reason some of the old very wide angle and certainly fisheye lenses are not as practical as a modern "made for digital" lens.

Sounds like your screen on the camera is faulty. Take it back to the dealer for a replacement.

Roger, for what it is worth.....

I process my raw files with Silkypix raw converter and save the resultant jpg together with the original raw file in Photoshop Elements.

If I want to do more extensive processing in PSE then I save the raw file as a TIFF. Then open the TIFF in PSE and eventually save as jpg.

Only rarely do I keep the TIFF as well as the jpg and raw file.

Lovely set, thanks for posting