What was the original question ...... I missed it.
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "AG Schnozz" <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 November, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Mind Bender (intermediate focal length?)
> And you thought that this was an easy answer.
>
> So far we've got four answers:
>
> 131-134mm
> 135mm
> 141.42mm
> 150mm
>
> Is SQR(100*200) actually correct? Maybe, maybe not. The SQR of
> the two focal lengths does not assume a starting magnification
> or angle-of-view.
>
> <stir stir stir>
>
> Maybe, we need to also look at magnification ratios. Do does
> FOV and magnification differ? Does the millimeter
> multiplication (50mm = 1:1, 100mm = 1:2, 200mm = 1:4) apply to
> macro work, but the FOV apply for infinity?
>
> Do toilets swirl in in clockwise directions in Australia?
>
> AG-Schnozz
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|