Thanks in advance.
MO
28mm lens no adapters
Very small
Canon Powershot A50 28-70mm (Very very small) $400 now
Look in the NG, there are some webpages that offer good reviews
Like, http://www.megapixel.net/html/issueindex.html
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
Not small
SONY DSC-D770 28-140mm $1,800 B&H Photo (NYC)
Very good lens, this camera is the same size as an SLR, focus ring
on lens.
Chris
a 28 mm lens on a digcam is goint to be more like a 40mm on a 35mm SLR.
not nearly as wide as you think - go to compusa and take some sample photos
--
_________________________
hank mitchell
hm...@hcia.com
http://www.hcia.com
410 895 7574
home:
ha...@silvercrayon.com
http://silvercrayon.com
410 528 8324
MosesTey <mose...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991104165515...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
Since the original poster was asking about which camera had a 28 mm _wide_
lens, I don't see any way to take this, other than 35 mm equivalent.
> a 28 mm lens on a digcam is goint to be more like a 40mm on a 35mm SLR.
>
You are a bit off, as far as digicam lenses to 35 mm equivalents are
concerned. In reality, a 28 mm lens on most of the current 2 megapixel
digicams would equate to at least 150 mm, using a 35 mm equivalent. For
example, the Oly 2000Z's lens is 6.5 mm at full wide, which has a 35 mm
equivalent of 35 mm. It's 19.5 mm at full telephoto, with a 35 mm equivalent
of 105 mm. A digital camera would need one heck of a large CCD to have its
28 mm lens work out to a 35 mm equivalent of 40 mm.
-Mike Lynch
=====================================
mly...@ctaz.com
Visit my Digital Camera Page:
http://www.ctaz.com/~mlynch
=====================================
Since 28 mm--without an adapter--was one of the requirements, the 2000Z,
which is 35 mm at full wide, does not exactly meet the requirements (using
35 mm equivalents, naturally).
Thanks.
MO
> The Olympus 2000 meets your requirements.
No it doesn't, this is not even subjective, it's math.
/Bengt Cyren
> 28 mm lens on a digcam is goint to be more like a 40mm on a 35mm SLR.
Wrong again "e". It's not a matter of "more like". It's pure math. Formula
Equvalent 35mm focal length = f * D / d
f is real focal length (a few mm)
D is length if 35 mm image diagonal which is 43.26 mm
d is length of CCD diagonal
/Bengt Cyren
On the Powershot A50Z, there is a 4.3mm -10.8mm zoom. With the 1/2.7" CCD cell,
that is supposedly the equivalent of a 28mm - 70mm on 35mm camera.
So, a actual 28mm lens on that digicam is the equivalent of a 182mm on a 35mm
camera.
e wrote:
> be careful, are you talking about 28mm equivilent? or actual 28 mm
>
> Looks like a case of more bad math...
> On the Powershot A50Z, there is a 4.3mm -10.8mm zoom. With the 1/2.7"
> CCD cell, that is supposedly the equivalent of a 28mm - 70mm on 35mm
> camera.
1/2.7" is the CCD silicon substrate size or something like that. These
figures means nothing. By examining A50 EXIF info you can find that the
CCD image area is 0.209" x 0.156". This is 5.31 x 3.96 mm. Thuse the
length of the diagonal is (phytagoras) 6.62 mm.
> So, a actual 28mm lens on that digicam is the equivalent of a 182mm on
> a 35mm camera.
The size of a 35 mm image is 36 x 24 mm and the length of the diagonal
43.27 mm. Now, to convert the zoom range of the A50 (as given above) to
35 mm equvalents you do...
4.3 mm * 43.27 / 6.62 which is 28.1 mm
10.8 mm * 43.27 / 6.62 which is 70.6 mm
So Canon quite accurately specified this range as 28-70 mm. The only
difference is that 35 mm images have a 3:2 aspect ratio whereas the A50
have 4/3. /Bengt Cyren
or
You could get a Pro camera for $5,000 to $20,000 and
buy any lens you want for another thousand. :)