I don't want to prolong an already overly long thread, but here goes anyway: <g>
Now, you really have me confused, Bob! I have a 3.8 lens - what's that going to be, about an 11.8 under your system? I guess that's not really the problem, because once you get used to it, they're just numbers... I guess one problem I'd have, is that all older lenses are the old way, all the new lenses would be the new way, and there'd be one hell of a transition period. To use your example from another post about computers and byte-ordering chips, or whatever: you don't need to know that to use a computer, but you do need to know f-stops to manually set the exposure of a camera - something that every serious photographer needs to do at some point. Unlike computers that become obsolete overnight (how many 10 year old computers are still being used?), there are millions of old manual lenses out there, that will continue to be used for a long time yet. So now folks are going to be having lenses with different numbers for the same thing - that much more info to keep in the brain, one more conversion to make mentally. So students with their old K1000's and 50mm primes will still have to learn f-stops ~and~ your system - how confusing will that be? Yours might be a great system if there were no past in photography, if it were being invented for the first time. Kudos on thinking about it, and trying to do something about an issue that you feel is problematic. But the current system has rational underpinnings, is easy to understand, is meaningful to every photographer that wants to take the few minutes to learn it, and has just been around too long to make an easy transition. If 99.999999% of the people ~don't~ need to know about f-stops, they won't need to know about your system either. They'll be using p&s's or leaving their slr's on AutoExposure all the time anyway, they won't be driven away from the hobby, imho. cheers, frank Bob Walkden wrote: > Hi, > > you've misunderstood. I'm not suggesting any changes to the laws of > physics. I'm suggesting a simpler user interface to the laws of > physics, eg: > > Label f-stop > 1 90 > 2 64 > 3 45 > 4 32 > 5 22 > 6 16 > 7 11 > 8 8 > 9 5.6 > 10 4 > 11 2.8 > 12 2 > 13 1.4 > 14 1 > 15 0.7 > > Label the lens as indicated. Then the number gets bigger when the hole > gets bigger. That's all. 99.99999% of people using cameras don't need > to know anything about the f-stop system, and the f-stop system > confuses people when they're trying to learn to use cameras. > > --- > > Bob > > Monday, November 25, 2002, 11:27:41 AM, you wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:04:48 +0000, Bob Walkden wrote: > > >>Hi, > >> > >>good story, but it's the wrong analogy. I'm not suggesting a change to > >>the f-stop system I'm suggesting a different way of labelling lenses. > > > That would be like changing the way you rate electrical appliances. > > It's all based on a system of maths and physics and as everyone knows, > > you can not change the laws of physics. Even if you changed to > > imperial measures for focal length and labeled a 50 mm lens as a 1.9685 > > inch lens, f2 would still be f2 because it is a ratio. f1.4 would still > > be one stop faster than f2 because of the maths involved. If you try > > and reverse the order so a small aperture hole gives a small number you > > loose any relationship to what it really means and you make creating > > tables a near impossibility. > > > Optics is a science and science relys on physical relationships to > > produce repeatable results. If you don't want to learn the science > > that's fine, but don't expect science to change just for you. > > > Leon > > > http://www.bluering.org.au > > http://www.bluering.org.au/leon -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
