Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Actually I just remembered one more thing Outside of the superimposition vs split image factor, not all RFs with the same effective base are the same. The proportion of abolute mechanical length to magnification is also important. As the mechanical base gets shorter and magnification gets higher you need more accurate mechanicals. IE: For a given effective base, an RF with a very short mechanical base and very high magnification is far more sensitive to things like cam variations and mechanical play than one with a long physical base and lower magnification. For this reason I think it's a good idea to first keep the mechanical base as long as possible (constrained by camera proportions) and then add as much magnification as you can. This would make the Contax 1 the most accurate superimposition RF ever put on any 35 camera even if it's effective base was the same as the next one which I think is the 2 followed by the Leica 3. Whatever the case I'm guessing there must be an optimum proportion of physical base to magnification but I have no idea what it might be. I could be wrong though perhaps it just runs away. Does anyone know. Javier __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html