>>From: andrew fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in part:
* Fill flash is much easier to calculate in metres - there's less of them
(T20 refers to 20 metres!)
Well, I disagree, but at least it's for the exact same reason. <G>
Cheers,
Joel W.
Don't quite get your meaning - but, I was brought up on feet and inches and
still can't think of people's heights in metric (the suspect was 1.79m tall
- huh?) but find it much easier to estimate focussing distance in metric. I
think because flash distance measurement only needs to be fairly crude, a
large unit works well.
AndrewF
Sometimes I think that the drive for uniformity is overdone. I dread
the day when everyone in the world resembles a character on a TV
sitcom in speech and appearance and uses the metric system
exclusively. There will certainly be fewer reasons to travel. There
is a lot of charm in hearing the weight of a Britisher in stones and
a pleasant interchange to figure out what they mean in pounds. It
also further separates us from our roots and makes for additional
footnotes for any previously written books which refer to English
units. In these days of software and hand held computers the need
for uniformity in every area is less, I think. The "easy to use"
argument can also be used to reduce the choice of cameras to only
point and shoots.
I have to agree that I find it easier to quickly divide a flash guide
number by 8 feet in my head than by 2.4 meters, but then I am
probably more challenged than most.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|