So it must be a 50mm f5.6 lens unless the pic of the camera in #23 is a total fake. Unless there is some kind of an explanation that covers this, we may have just got it wrong
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
So it must be a 50mm f5.6 lens unless the pic of the camera in #23 is a total fake. Unless there is some kind of an explanation that covers this, we may have just got it wrong
pentaxuser
Yep, ~50mm is almost certainly the effective focal length rather than the physical one; the camera is half-frame mirrorless, after all.
Agreed, looks like they have assumed a crop factor of 1.61 and therefore taken the (actual) 31mm lens as being equivalent to 50mm. They have then divided the (actual) f number of 9 by the assumed 1.61 crop factor to get the quoted f number of 5.6.
If "Agfa" is selling a small, light, inexpensive, full-frame camera with a 31mm lens and built-in flash, I might be interested. It all depends on the results!
Dividing the f-number is simply wrong. I don't know what they have or have not done, but an 31mm f/9 lens exposes like an f/9 lens regardless of the crop factor. Further, it has a pupil diameter and a depth of field that is like a 50mm f/14 lens ( 9*1.6). IOW, if anything the f-number would be multiplied, not divided.
The results will be the same as all the other 31mm fixed focus built in flash cameras out there, reskinned in whoever is trying to sell it.
But really, why don't you pick one up anyway? They're like $20.
I said "FULL-FRAME". I already have a half-frame with a "31mm". That's NOT wide in half-frame, but it is in FULL-FRAME. That's the difference.
AgfaPhoto has been selling (before this half frame camera existed) a full frame camera with the 31 f9 lens - that's what Huss was talking about.
Agreed, I suspect that whoever did it had a vague idea about crop factor affecting depth of field but what they appear to have done didn't make much sense to me.
OK. I found it. It is also sold as the Harmon Reuseable and the Ilford Sprite II. The reviews are mixed -- either very good or bad. Apparently some have had major mechanical problems. And here's this:
"It’s no secret that the Ilford Sprite 35-II cameras do not capture sharp images. But that’s not what this camera is about.
The corners are completely unsharp while suffering from vignetting, lens flare, chromatic aberration, and dramatic distortion. The center of the frame is a little better, but that’s about where it ends. If you’re capturing landscapes, this camera isn’t going to capture photos that get featured in National Geographic (though, they could probably make it in Vogue!) "
I think we are overthinking this and what actually is going on is marketing BS. “Ooh look, our camera has a 50mm 5.6 lens! Because that is what it says on it..”
I think we are overthinking this and what actually is going on is marketing BS. “Ooh look, our camera has a 50mm 5.6 lens! Because that is what it says on it..”
They got 'focus free' marked but forgot to add 'optical lens'!
I can see why the half-frame versions of these cameras would be popular -- the price of film is cut in half, and the LOMO effects are double those of the full-frame version.
So when I want LOMO, I'll stick with my TELEPATHY half-frame.
But it isn't a meniscus, at least not if it's the same lens on the Kodak version. Two element, if I recall correctly.I guess the Marketing Department can't spell "Meniscus"
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?