http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml You tell that other boy, not to touch the woodwork... Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:24:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-hemorrhage hourly 1 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml#comment-382241 The Woodwork » Blog Archive » Running with cameras Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:51:30 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml#comment-382241 [...] already explained the advantages of a travel kit lens before. Basically, if you want this lens for “full frame” you are talking about an optic that cost and [...] [...] already explained the advantages of a travel kit lens before. Basically, if you want this lens for “full frame” you are talking about an optic that cost and [...]

]]> http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml#comment-5528 The Woodwork » Blog Archive » Lies, Damn Lies, and Bias Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:50:53 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml#comment-5528 [...] But Reichmann shows what a fucktard he is when he calls the size advantage “a myth.” He feels he blows a hole in my optical cost principle by comparing the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (on a 35mm body) to the Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 (on the L1), which even he admits is “a fair bit lighter.” See anything wrong here kids? [...] [...] But Reichmann shows what a fucktard he is when he calls the size advantage “a myth.” He feels he blows a hole in my optical cost principle by comparing the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (on a 35mm body) to the Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 (on the L1), which even he admits is “a fair bit lighter.” See anything wrong here kids? [...]

]]> http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml#comment-2159 mediamux » Blog Archive » The New High-definition, Part 2 Mon, 15 May 2006 23:19:16 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/my-optical-cost-principle.shtml#comment-2159 [...] Why not 35mm (8/3″)? I think Terry’s optical cost principal explains this very well. Translation: 6/3″ (APS-C) is much cheaper and lighter than 8/3″ (35mm), with very little quality loss. For content creators who need to go cheap and mobile, this this key. [...] [...] Why not 35mm (8/3″)? I think Terry’s optical cost principal explains this very well. Translation: 6/3″ (APS-C) is much cheaper and lighter than 8/3″ (35mm), with very little quality loss. For content creators who need to go cheap and mobile, this this key. [...]

]]>