[Leica] One Big Expensive Leica Lens

[hlritter at bex.net (Howard Ritter)]

OK, here's the math:

The ABSOLUTE image scale on the film/sensor is about the same because the 
focal lengths are about the same.

But "magnification" is a RELATIVE concept. The question is, relative to what?
If the "what" is the image scale of the respective cameras' "normal" lenses, 
then:
        The magnification of the Ridiculonar on the Hassy, whose "normal" 
lens is 80mm, is 1700/80 = about 21x
        The magnification of the Gargantumarit on a Leica, whose "normal" 
lens is 50mm, is 1600/50 = 32x

So, for example, prints made to the same physical size from full frames 
taken with the tele lenses, or full frames viewed on the same monitor, will 
show the subject 21 and 32 times as large as same-size prints from the 
"normal" lenses.

?howard
(rits)

On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> Will I'd think somebody could do the math and then they do and you're right
> and I'm wrong I'll concede.
> But my  money goes to Leica is going to have not a slightly more
> magnification. But a lot more.
> You read it here first.  Its in writing. Right here.
> Prove me wrong I'll eat crow with Bosco.
> 
> --------------------
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography.
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> mark at rabinergroup.com