OK folks,
You are busily comparing apples to donuts. Attributing the reported
experience that the T32 covers the view of a 24mm lens to things like 24
mm not being much wider than 28 mm and general bouncing around of light
indoors, and whatever other excuses one can make for poor Oly is silly.
Put your brains in thinking mode, assume the engineers at Oly were at
least semi competent and the marketing guys were just like all marketing
guys.
Do a little quick trig. The Angle of Views for lenses quoted in the eSIF
are for the diagonal of the film frame, 43.3mm, not the long axis of 36mm.
For a 24mm lens, with spec. angle of view of 84 degrees, @ infinity:
Film Dimensions
--------------------
Short Long Diag.
Frame 24 36 43.3
1/2 Fr. 12 18 21.6
Tangent .50 .75 .90
1/2 Angle 26.6 36.9 42.0
AoV 53 74 84
In the upper portion of the eSIF, it states, " The coverage angle is
almost equal to the picture angle of a 24mm super wide angle lens."
In the Specifications portion of the eSIF, it states. "Coverage angle:
53° vertical, 74° horizontal (covers picture area of 24mm lens)."
In the Main Specifications portion of the T32 Instruction Manual, it
states, "Coverage angle: 53° vertical, 74° horizontal"
Hmmm, like Horton, they said what they meant and meant what they said.
Now, the question of how much fall-off they allow in measuring coverage
is still open, and we can continue to argrue, opinionate, prognosticate
and maybe even test, that characteristic. Somebody got a blank white
wall, T32, 24mm lens and some time on their hands? I think PS could
stand in for the densitometer.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|