The only part that it was necessary to read was the paragraph I quoted
below. It says it all very succinctly. And, no, I didn't write it.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/11/2011 11:36 PM, Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> Chuck, no one actually read it because the picture
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Normal_Lenses_7253.jpg> has a Zeiss
> sharp and contrasty at the front of the group, and the Zuiko was far
> back, 'though the .jpg has a nice and blurry soft bokeh.
> It should be at the front, maybe the Zuiko 50 Macro ƒ/2 instead. ;-)
>
> Did I misunderstood what you had said, or was it you who wrote the
> article, or part of it?
>
> I didn't read it, but printed as .pdf and downloaded it. Must first
> find the time to read it.
> I'm still puzzled with the cone and its diameter ....
>
> Fernando.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Chuck Norcutt
> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This is basically what I said in my *very first* post on this subject
>> quoting the Wiki article here:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens> which says in part:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> A lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film
>> or sensor format is known as a normal lens; its angle of view is similar
>> to the angle subtended by a large-enough print viewed at a typical
>> viewing distance equal to the print diagonal; this angle of view is
>> about 53° diagonally.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> I suspect no one actually read it. :-)
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
