Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,974   Posts: 1,558,732   Online: 813
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    In the case of the Bessas, the R3-a has a 1:1. This means that you can't get a 35mm frameline. You get the 40mm instead. This could mean a lot if you own a 35mm lens(es) or it could mean nothing.

    As to aperture, ummm....f2.8 is f2.8.

    Period.

    F stop numbers are ratios, so they are the same on all lenses. F8 is f8 no matter what.
    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  2. #12
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke
    For RF lenses, more of the light that strikes the lens ends up in the correct place on the film. There is less diffusion. The OVERALL amount of light at f/2.8 is theoretically the same. But correct placement contributes to better sharpness and higher contrast, hence the high regard for RF glass.
    Uh ... I don't want to start anything, but ... Do you mean to suggest that the light from an "ordinary" (non-retrofocus) lens DOESN'T "end up in the correct place on the film"?
    When you speak of "diffusion", do you mean "dispersion"? - With more glass, there should be more, not less...
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #13
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    Uh ... I don't want to start anything, but ... Do you mean to suggest that the light from an "ordinary" (non-retrofocus) lens DOESN'T "end up in the correct place on the film"?
    When you speak of "diffusion", do you mean "dispersion"? - With more glass, there should be more, not less...
    Yes, that is indeed what I mean, though SLR lenses are generally retrofocus lenses, which is just why they have problems versus RF lenses (or LF lenses).

    Some of the light ends up in the correct place, but some photons are scattered inappropriately, due to more glass, more surfaces, etc. SLRs == Retrofocus designs == more surface, more glass, and more diffusion of the irradiance ("dispersion" is the same thing). Non-retrofocal designs, such as SLR tele lenses, are on a more even footing with their RF cousins. Of course, for those of us 35mm shooters who treat anything longer than 45mm as a rarely-used exotic lens, I guess that particular SLR benefit goes largely unrealized

    (None of this means you should change exposure when shooting with a rangefinder or LF camera as opposed to an SLR, though)

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin