[Leica] PAW, now lens equiv

[SonC at aol.com (Sonny Carter)]

hmmmm.  When I first became a news photographer, we mostly used primes. 
   It was usually sufficient to say wide-angle, normal, and telephoto.

I REALLY can't remember sitting around outside of the Criminal Courts 
Building waiting for Jim Garrison's or Clay Shaw's people to come out 
and discussing "equivelent focal lengths."

"Ah," you say, "but you did not have digital!"  True enough, but we had 
  Auricons, Bell and Howells, Nikons, Leicas, Mamiya and Rollei; various 
formats that used wide angle, normal and tele.   We had some zooms for 
the movie cameras, but we never zoomed them.  We used them at wide angle 
most of the time, unless we needed a medium shot or a close-up.

SonC







B. D. Colen wrote on 3/29/2004, 8:43 AM:

 > 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
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Leica Users Group.
 > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
 >