Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]However, George - and I really am trying to discuss this, not argue about it, on a list such as this, which while it may go ludicrously far afield, is, when all is said and done a 35 mm list, speaking of equivalent focal lengths does make some sense for the simply reason that it gives people a point of reference. I can talk all I want about the 50 f2 macro for my E-1, but in terms of the images it produces, I'm talking about what I have always known as 100 mm images - it is my portrait lens. Why not say it? Especially because there is so much variation in multiplication factors. B. D. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of George Lottermoser Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:40 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW Sam3/27/04 >Equivalent lens lengths will be with us until sensor size becomes >standardized. A 100mm lens on a 35mm film frame means something. A 100mm >lens on differing size sensors means nothing. but that won't happen and this equivalent stuff is because of the overthecounter point and shooters. There's no such thing as standardized format 6x6, 645, 6x12, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 8x17, 11x14, 12x20, aps, 120, 127, 220 and then 35mm by which all lenses should be refered - it's ridiculous. Fond regards, G e o r g e L o t t e r m o s e r, imagist? <?>Peace<?> <?>Harmony<?> <?>Stewardship<?> Presenting effective messages in beautiful ways since 1975 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ web <www.imagist.com> eMail george@imagist.com voice 262 241 9375 fax 262 241 9398 Lotter Moser & Associates 10050 N Port Washington Rd - Mequon, WI 53092 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information