[Leica] PAW

[george at imagist.com (George Lottermoser)]

B. D. Colen3/29/04

>speaking of equivalent focal lengths does make 
>some sense for the simply reason that it gives people a point of reference. I 

Absolutely. I'm all for speaking of "equivalent" focal lengths, it helps to get some idea of the sensor size, etc. 

I just don't want to speak "only" in the language of "equivalents." I want to learn and understand these various cameras and systems - from the lowliest to the loftiest. So for you to say, "this photo - using the 11 - 22mm, 2.8 on the xcam n6 (35 equiv 21 - 42mm)." - gives me more significant informtion to then evaluate the depth of field, sensor size, lens speed, et al. I'm not trying to be retro with this request, it just seems weird that we're not addressing real optical specs on a list where many seem to worship the optical/technical/historical. And while the list began as 35mm based, I have the feeling that we've all played with a lot more than just 35 film.

Bottom line: I'd simply appreciate knowing the actual system specs whenever possible. Thanks,

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~