on 11/25/02 3:10 PM, AG Schnozz at agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I think this is a "modern math" thing. If multiplications are
> supposed to be rough multiples of focal length then why is 135mm
> the oddball? Hmm????
>
> AG-Schnozz
Maybe it was the longest focal length that could be effectively (or is that
affectively?) focused with a rangefinder, such as the early 35mm cameras
had...?
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|