Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree completely, having the equivalent is interesting but knowing the exact focal length would be better IMO as well. I guess the companies want people to still buy on pixel count despite the fact that this is no longer the major limitation. Frank On 27 Mar 2004, at 20:02, George Lottermoser wrote: > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:20:02 -0500 >>> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Subject: [Leica] PAW >>> >>> http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/image-63132.html >>> >>> Alt 1 http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/image-63133.html >>> Alt 2 http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/image-63134.html >>> >>> All shot with Leica E1 and 21.... ;-) > > Something weird about refering to the lenses on these digicams in > terms of 35mm equiv. I'd appreciate knowing actual lens specs rather > than equivs because then I can actually gain knowledge about chip > size, depth, etc. For nearly 50 years I've been able to discuss actual > focal length regardless of format - can't we keep speaking in real > focal length? Anyone else feel similar? > > 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 >