Re: [OM] 0.95

[Ken Norton]

Andrew, there was a recent stink about this on Luminous-Landscape.
After a while I opined about mechanical vignetting caused by the
restricted throat in the mirror chamber--which shouldn't be as much of
an issue with micro fourthirds. Essentially, my observation was met
with a giant yawn because the talking heads would rather think there
is some consipiracy among the camera manufacturers in that they are
doing some form of ISO gaming of the system when you put a bright lens
on a digital camera.

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=554&Itemid=1

As you know, an F-stop is an F-stop is an F-stop... Provided there is
no additional mechanical vignetting or off-axis attenuation caused by
the microlenses, you'll get F0.95 no matter what.

This equivalency argument (this aperture equals that aperture on a
different format) is concerning DoF, which is still incorrect. DoF is
equal when angle of coverage is equal from one lens/format to another
lens/format. This is provided that the DoF is based on a CoC and not
some arbitrary feeling.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/