At 02:59 PM 3/19/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>I usually like Mike Johnston's writing but this and his previous column
>was a disaster. What is so surprising about a 150mm lens being smaller
>and cheaper than a 300mm lens?
Isn't he simply saying that the same effective focal length in film terms
can be made more cheaply and effectively when designed to the smaller
sensor size? If that it true, resources and profits will push companies in
that direction, which I think is what Olympus' whole gamble with the 4/3
venture is about. Once people forget about the old film lenses, "designed
for digital" (for once!) should really mean something. Or what am I missing?
>He also shows that he is completely confused by viewfinder
>magnification, field of view and the sensor's crop factor.
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California, USA
You know more about these topics than I do, but I reread his article and
don't see where he messes up so badly on any of those topics. Any clues?
Joel W.
> Quote from Mike Johnston writing on Luminous-Landscape
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/mj-dof-response.shtml
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|