imageWIS said:What is the lens diameter needed for a 6x9 camera?
Jon.
Donald Miller said:For your future reference the image circle required for any lens is determined by determining the hypotenuse of the right triangle. The formula for this is H2 equals A2+B2...in the case of a 6X9 camera this would be 36+81 or 117...the square root of 117 is almost 11 cm.
Satinsnow said:Matt,
I would expect a lens designed for 645 to vignette on a 6x9, that seems to reason, All of my Mamiya lenses have square exits at the mount end of the lens, including my 500mm
Dave
MattKing said:Dave,
That is interesting, because none of my other lenses (45mm f/2.8 C - {77mm filter}, 55mm f/2.8 N, 80mm f/2.8 C and 70 mm f/2.8 C {leaf shutter}) have this baffle.
I too would have guessed that these 645 lenses would have probably vignetted, I just thought that the baffle might make it even more certain.
By the way, why do you think the baffle is used?
Thanks,
Matt
Satinsnow said:The circle of coverage for a 6x9cm would have to be at least 9cm in diameter to give full coverage. It really has nothing to do with the diameter of the lens, but the diameter of the projected image.
Dave
MattKing said:Dave,
Actually, if the circle of coverage is, indeed, a true circle, I think that the circle of coverage would have to be the diagonal of a 6x9cm rectangle, or at least 12.041 cm.
{its my damned training in physics and math - it goes weeks without being used, and then rears its ugly head at the most surprising moments}
Matt
Satinsnow said:Matt,
I already posted a follow-up that I screwed up and engaged keyboard before brain..
Dave
MattKing said:My apologies Dave - of course you did!
In case you missed it, in all humility I must confess, in pointing out the correction, I screwed up my calculation!
Matt
{Note to self - if you are going to respond to a post - first check if poster has already clarified or corrected same, especially when poster is known to be both accurate and careful!}
Satinsnow said:Don't worry Matt,
Heck a couple of beers and pizza on Saturday night and I am likly to mess just about anything up.....
Dave
jmdavis said:OK then. New rule. Dave can't grind on Saturday night after Beer and Pizza.
The lenses for my RB 67 don't seem to have baffles.
Mike Davis
100 mm, Dave. sqrt(57^2 + 82^2). 90 mm is the diagonal of nominal 6x7.Satinsnow said:The circle of coverage for a 6x9cm would have to be at least 9cm in diameter to give full coverage. It really has nothing to do with the diameter of the lens, but the diameter of the projected image.
Dave
Matt, 6x9 is a poor metric approximation to 2.25" x 3.25". There are a few 2x3 roll holders with gates longer than 3.25", e.g., the Suydam, which is 84 mm long. And there are some that are shorter, e.g., the Graflex RH-8. Bur a lens that covers 100 mm, and I mean covers, not illuminates, will put good image in the corners of all of them.MattKing said:Dave,
Actually, if the circle of coverage is, indeed, a true circle, I think that the circle of coverage would have to be the diagonal of a 6x9cm rectangle, or at least 12.041 cm.
{its my damned training in physics and math - it goes weeks without being used, and then rears its ugly head at the most surprising moments}
Matt
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?