OK, now I see the point if the intent is to produce magnification
tables. But the info of extension required by body is still valuable.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Eh? How does that help? Both the E-1 and E-500 have the same sensor size
>> but the E-1 (unlike the E-500) doesn't have a built-in flash protrusion and
>> doesn't need an extension tube. Or have I missed your meaning entirely?
>>
>
> Yes, you have. What I mean is that labeling a table "E-500, E-510 with
> 7mm" will lead to inevitable questions from those with E-520, 620 and
> future models.
>
> I would instead label the table "4/3 sensor with 7mm extension tube".
> Anyone with camera, adapter, tube(s) and bellows in hand will obviously
> know which tube they needed to mount the bellows.
>
> So the tables become:
> 4/3 sensor with 7mm extension tube (13.5x18mm)
> 4/3 sensor without extension tube (13.5x18mm)
> APS-C sensor with 14mm extension tube (22.2 x 14.8 mm*)
> Full Frame film or sensor with 7mm Extension tube (24x36mm)
>
> * Individual models vary slightly.
> -----------------
> If desired, a second table could document models and tube needed for each.
>
> Note that Alan wrote "It looks as though I need 4 new tables for each
> macro lens:" With camera models noted in the table titles, adding new
> models could be quite a chore for all those individual tables.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|