Antonio wondered: > Aha, here comes the rest of the lynch Mob. How is it you only join threads I > am in to attack me?
Because you are a jackass and I think some of your more asinine posts require correction. > I am quite capable of speaking for myself thanks - your representation of my > comments is in fact (surprise, surprise) wrong. Boy you guys do like > spinning it, dont you. "Thanks"?? I'm not offering to speak for you. I'm pointing out that you misrepresented what someone else said, in order to disagree with your version of what he said. (Which is something of a pattern with you.) Unfortunately for your credibility (assuming you still have any around here) the very thing you quoted demonstrated what you were doing. > Saying that a 50mm lens becomes a an xxxmm lens is not "bullshit" as > greyworld would make out (notice he also later went on to state that "the > whole thing seems a form a penis envy" - a curious thing to say when > discussing focal lenghs, angles of view and lenses...). I guess some people > cant open their mouths without splurting out profanities. As a woman, I have no interest in the topic of "penis envy". But I will discuss lenses. A 50mm lens does not BECOME any other focal length of lens, ever, just by virtue of being attached to a different format of camera. Graywolf, whom you quoted, said it made perfect sense to state that a 50mm on a particular digital camera would be EQUIVALENT TO (some other focal length) on 35mm. But, as he went on to point out, saying it "becomes" that is untrue. Incorrect. Total nonsense. He used a word that you quoted and I generally don't use. Now, if "greyworld" is a different person who said something else that you want to rebut, then you should quote that person along with your rebuttal. > > Using the 35mm equivalent measure is very much standard practice and very > much widely used. It refers to AOV and how this changes depending on sensor > size (refered to as the crop factor). Yes, you're right on both counts, but ... > And when people say x becomes y they > are referring to AOV, and are entirely correct. .. now you're wrong. When people say x becomes y, they MAY BE referring to AOV and just sloppy in their language, or they may actually believe that x becomes y (in which case they're misunderstanding what happens). Either way the statement is in fact incorrect. Now, if it's obvious from the context that they're just using sloppy language and they're communicating with other people who understand what they mean, communication works fine. But if it's not clear that they know what they really mean, or if their audience includes people who don't know what they really mean, then confusion can result. Therefore, it's best not to use the incorrect phrasing. ERN
