graywolf wrote: > > So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have been > written over the years about many things because they sounded good, > then repeated over and over without thought. I can prove that focal > length has little to do with perspective.
Actually, it never occurred to me that it particularly mattered, so I never committed any of that to memory, subject to recall for proving a rarely broached point... I trained as an artist, and "perspective" was portraying what was, either as accurately as possible, or taking whatever liberties I wished. > Can you prove tha ecomonics > has little to do with what lens comes standard on your camera? <g> No. I would assume it had some pertinence, tho'. These days, for some arcane reason economics rules almost everything. I do NOT think the manufacturer's choice between providing a 43mm lens and a 50mm lens as a "standard" lens was or is purely or even mostly economically driven, however. To say that simply because a 4 element lens is cheap it drove the choice by the manufacturer, and they chose cheap over lens coverage, as you intimated, is out of the pale. That means patently incorrect, by the way. In my most humble opinion, of course, as always... > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > ; ^) > > > > You left out a few words like 'probably' and 'possibly' or 'presumably,' > > and especially 'IMMHO,' Se�or Graywolf. > > -- > > --graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com
