Forums | MacLife

:: hands Gurlugon a can of peas and a blender ::

Does that mean a hold on $3,500 HP displays?

Ribtorus wrote:

I also resolve to not swallow sharp metallic objects, refrain from uninvited topiary and to improve my. punctation

I'll also get with the relevant parts of that .app. I suggest waiting here in the .sittingroom, or sitting here in the .waitingroom

/mission accomplished

Smaller crop factor is primarily good for the folks who already have an investment in lenses for film cameras. I'd love to take advantage of that but I'd have to get an $8,000 D3x Nikon body.

Donkey Butter wrote:

doesn't the 5d have a full frame sensor? so there would be no crop factor compared to a 35mm film camera.

my new years resolutions include purchasing an r1200gs (probably won't happen) and replacing my 40d with the 5d. (probably won't happen) and calling my family more often.

If I recall it was 1.3x - maybe I'm thinking of the 20D.

Anyway - I was looking at Nikon - the D90 looks right up my alley, even has the capability (I think purchased separately) to GPS tag an image. I'd probably trust my real GPS more, but right now - I make notes of what I shoot and where I shot an image since I upload the images to a wildlife biology database (though my current camera, Nikon Coolpix something or other, technically allows me to audibly record notes with an image).

D90 I think is 1.5x crop factor.

-=-

Reason I want low crop factor is because I like to do some wide angle shots and wide angle zooms suck, the distortion is worse - especially at the ultra-wide side of the zoom. A 20mm lens is equivalent to a 32 on a Canon Digital Rebel - barely wide angle.

Both 5Ds are full frame