Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Henning of course that is exactly correct and established science. Not intended to resurrect any old discussions on that. Just commenting on the practical differences in this example. I agree regarding the combo utility/logic/practicality as well. 2009/12/2 Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> > With the 20 on m4/3 you get exactly the field of view (and perspective, in > all regards) of a 40 on 24x36, but you get more dof. Not as much as a 20 on > 24x36 because you have to enlarge the picture more to get the same size, > but > you do get noticeably more dof. > > I like the GF1 and 20 combo; I've used the camera with the other lenses, > but the 20 is the one that makes the most sense on this camera. > > > > At 6:57 AM +1000 12/2/09, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: > >> I mean having to use a 20mm lens in this case to produce the effective >> field of view of a 40mm lens on a "35mm" camera. >> >> > -- > > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman