Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]But it's not easy to understand, in my opinion. Because if someone starts saying how great it is when he/she puts a 135 on the m4/3 they're getting a 270mm picture I get confused and angry, like a hungry overtired child.... know what I mean? Thanks though for the clear answer. V On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Daniel Tan <taniel.dan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 April 2010 15:33, Vince Passaro <passaro.vince at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 2. A less simple question: the ongoing thread about Leica lenses on the > GF1 > > began with some commentary that included language that depicted using the > > 50/1.4 on the GF1 as having a "100/1.4" lens on the camera. I see this > all > > the time, the equation of the half crop with a lens twice as long. But > > isn't > > what one has really a 50mm image with a 25% crop off all four sides? And > a > > slightly narrower (more tele) angle of view? Please correct me in however > > I've gotten this wrong. But I'm pretty sure that having a half-sized > > sensor > > is not the same as putting a 2x converter on a full frame. It doesn't > yield > > the same image at all. Why do people say this? > > > > > yes, you're correct, all you're doing is cropping a 50mm picture to have > the > same FOV as a 100. > > People use it because it's convenient. And easy to understand. > > I sit there and scratch my head trying to figure out what the FOV of a 65mm > lens on a 6x6 is. But if someone told me that it was equivalent to a 35mm > on > 135 then I would understand. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >