| Subject: | Re: [OM] DPReview on the "standard lens" |
|---|---|
| From: | Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 24 May 2009 06:44:12 -0400 |
Ummm. Did anyone actually read the reference I posted? The definition of a standard lens as a geometric reference was the whole point of the article. Chuck Norcutt Carlos J. Santisteban wrote: > > I agree with AG -- 50mm is too narrow as "standard" for me.... > > There's no magic with the 50mm focal. I think the definition of a "standard" > lens is a confrontation of subjective, artistic views and technical > reasons; 43.3mm is just a geometric reference. -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Images As The Mood Strikes - 2, Fernando Gonzalez Gentile |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Dog cropping?, Chuck Norcutt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] DPReview on the "standard lens", Moose |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] DPReview on the "standard lens", Fernando Gonzalez Gentile |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |