--- Stefan Gerris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> > What's so hard to understand about two guys with
> > two different bodies (a 1.0x and 1.6x) and
> > identical lenses taking a photo from the exact
> > same location?
>
> This isn't hard to grasp at all. The problem is,
> that the resulting images are by definition
> NOT "exact same images"! To get an "exact same
> image", you would have to use a 1.6x longer lens on
> the FF body. And even then, there's the issue of F-
> stop conversion... However useless Peter's
> comparison may seem to some, the only
> misunderstanding I see lies in the wording "exact
> same image" and how this should be interpreted.
>
> Cheers, Stefan
Maybe we should say in this context (argument?), we
should accept the following defination of "exact same
image":
By shooting an image from the exact same spot, with an
exact same focal length lens, and with the exact
central axis towards the image capturing
device/medium, irregradless of the sensor/medium of
the device :)
cheers,
Huang Shao Hui
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
