Subject: | Re: [OM] An elemental question for the group |
---|---|
From: | Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:05:44 -0700 |
In a message dated 7/19/02 4:20:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hiwayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:OPTICAL CONSTRUCTION: 9 elements in 10 groups Okay, now, how can there be more groups than elements?Missprint. It really has 10 elements, 9 groups. Regards, Greg L. I liked it better the other way. It is weird nomenclature anyway. There is only one group and eight individual ungrouped elements. Last time I looked a group involved more than one. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California ? < 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 > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Why I do it the analogue way..., Steve Dropkin |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] are SC lenses to blame?, Winsor Crosby |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] An elemental question for the group, GPaul64 |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] An elemental question for the group, frieder . faig |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |