Rob, there is a correction to my post, ie “In 6x7 terms” should be “In 35mm terms”. No matter.
I don’t have a standard lens but it’s 90mm.
If you’re using an effective focal length of 480mm, for comparable results I would need to go 2x this or nearly 1000mm (to convert 35mm equivalents just double the focal length).
My ignorance of digital cameras is almost total but does the film sensor area produce a raw image about 1.5x that of 35mm? If this is correct, then your figure of 480mm could be divided by 1.5 to give just over 300mm (320mm) in 35mm terms? It’s simpler for me to think in terms of 35mmm/6x7.
You may wonder why I’m so keen to pin this down. Simple, if I going to fork out around £1,300 for a second-hand lens (£7000 new) plus £250 for a used 1.4x (or 2x) converter, I need to know it will deliver the images. If not, I’ll save the money and enjoy the excellent shots on WPF.
I’ve just had a quick glance at your portfolio. Magnificent stuff, especially the jersey. Re the squirrel, the focal length is given as 300.0mm (35mm equivalent: 2245mm). Note 2245mm. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance.
Grant.
|