On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> to quote Douglas Adams: "This is, of course, impossible."
What's Douglas' expertise in photography ? :-)
<William goes on to say this is all impossible, and that Doris F
must be joking> (she isn't).
> A resolution of .01" at 3' is better than one part in
> a thousand!
> A rangefinder would have to have a VERY long effective baselength to
> provide .01" resolution. Such resolution isn't needed anyway, because
> it's much greater than the minimum depth of field of any lens.
The M6 does.
Dear William ---
From the Editors at Photo Techniques:
[Sept/Oct 1998, p. 28]
" The human eye can detect differences less than .06 MILLIMETERS,*
at three meters. That is less than the thickness of a human hair.
The virtual distance with which we look at the rangefinder spot in
the camera is +/- 1.4 meters (-0.6 diopter). We then are able to see
differences of 0.05 mm. As the rangefinder is built with a 1/100mm
tolerance, we may safely state that the accuracy of the rangefinder
exceeds by a factor of five the one needed for the visual acuity of the
eye. "
Thanks for making me re-read this fascinating article.
To paraphrase your sig...
> "Think, people, think!" -- Lex Luthor, "Superman -- the Motion Picture"
*= Doris Fang =*
Ps.* 1mm = .039" .06 x .039" = .00234 ", a lot less than .01"
< 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 >
|