I can't see the point in changing from an aperture value system that
means something, to an arbitrary system with no arithmetical connection
between settings and to the physical attributes of the lens.
To a beginner any progression of numbers will be as mysterious as any
other, so there is no
Unless it was a blindingly simple method, why change a century (+) old
system. And if it were so blindingly simple, why haven't some of the last
century's brightest minds concocted a simpler system? Probably because there
isn't one. Be that as it may of course, if there is a simpler method then
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:34:25 +1000, John Coyle wrote:
Picky, Doug!
You are right, of course, John. It's just that if you try to go from
f/1.0 to the upper reaches of f/64 and above, using 1.4 instead of the
square root of two, you get off from the standard f-stop values and
it can be
Cheers (hic,...having a vino Cotty, how about you!)
I'll have a large one thanks!
*parp*
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
A a man after my own bottle.
Chin chin
Shaun
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2002 6:13 AM
To: Pentax List
Subject: RE: Aperture values (was: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S)
Cheers (hic,...having a vino Cotty, how about you!)
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Pie are not squared, pie are round. Cornbread are
squared.
Len (in America's outback)
---
-Original Message-
From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Aperture values (was: Why I won't
Hi,
And of course, the problem of the changeover period, when all of the
old equipment would have inconsistencies with newly produced gear,
would last for a very long time, and cause great confusion!
well, there's the rub. It would have as much chance of success as
attempts to change the
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:01:49 +1000, John Coyle wrote:
f1.4 = .7142857, or 71 for simplicity
Actually, these are all based on the square root of two, so f/1.4 is
really f/1.4142... and the multiplicative inverse is 0.7071... doesn't
change your shortened numbers, but I like accuracy. ;-)
TTYL,
Picky, Doug! I just took the number to the first significant digit for
the calculation.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
On Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:21 AM, Doug Franklin
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:01:49 +1000, John Coyle wrote:
f1.4 = .7142857, or 71 for
9 matches
Mail list logo
