2008/3/5, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> From: "Leandro DUTRA" <leandro.gfc.dutra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 2008/3/5, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> ...many OM Zuikos
> >> performed very well edge to edge on the 4/3 including the 16/3.5
> >> fisheye.
> >
> > Yes, but then they are not really the wide angulars they are in their
> > original system, nor are they weather sealed or autofocus as digitals
> > should be.
>
> I don't think so, what important is coverage and focal length, a 16mm is a
> 16mm, it is a 32mm in 4/3, still a wide angle.
But not *such* a wide angle.
> Olympus can make such a small
> 25/2.8, that means AF is not the point for heavy and large.
No, but it is not as fast. And AF and sealing help add weight and size.
> > I am just being empirical. I would be pleased to be contradicted
> > empirically or technically, but so far nothing has came forth!
>
> If your theory is right, my 5050's F1.8 lens must be very big, it's sensor
> is samller than 4/3 and started at 7.1mm!
Not at all, you misunderstood me. How much is this 7,1mm equivalent
in 24×36mm? As you said, 7,1 is 7,1.
--
skype:leandro.gfc.dutra?chat Yahoo!: ymsgr:sendIM?lgcdutra
+55 (11) 3040 7300 r155 gTalk: xmpp:leandrod@xxxxxxxxxx
+55 (11) 9406 7191 ICQ/AIM: aim:GoIM?screenname=61287803
+55 (11) 5685 2219 MSN: msnim:chat?contact=leandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|