Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Why don't you read what the message said - that it was a question about the analytical model being used, with a short statement of why I had that particular question. Need every sentence end with a question mark? Is a modal verb like "seem" too subtle? I have not yet seen a treatment that addresses how 150% magnification can overcome a short base. Maybe you could point one out. When you see the "can my 0.58 focus a Noctilux" thread, and the only references are to Erwins materials, which neither address this point nor talk about the assumptions underlying EBL, it becomes clear that these "extensive studies" and "proper analytical techniques" are not accessible. If you look at the questions on LUG, 75% can be answered by common sense. So why is a question which requires a touch more thought than the filter size of a Summicron provoke an attack? - ------------ Dante Stella On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Dennis Painter wrote: > Dante A Stella wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > So in sum, it would look like EBL is a questionable concept for magnifications > > over 100%, and that use of EBL for magnifications lower than 100% is really just > > a shorthand for accuracy in the hands of an average user, accuracy which may or > > may not be reflective of any particular individual. > > Good grief! > > Rangefinder accuracy has been studied a great deal with proper > analytical techniques. > > How about you do some research on other's studies before presenting a > summation. Maybe then it will be of more value to the LUG. > > Dennis >