The "50mm" might, maybe, be defensible as a sort of "35mm [full frame] equivalent image scale" because it's used that way so much in marketing of digital lenses. But even if so I can't imagine f/5.6 meaning anything other than it says, which is also pretty clearly just plain wrong.The bizarre thing, of course, is that no one would want 50mm on a half frame point-and-shoot. 21-28 would be best. And depth of field of 50mm at 5.6 is pretty sad.
@MattKing --- if the 50mm on the lens doesn't refer to the lens, what does it refer to? Labelling with the appearance of identifying is pretty straightforwardly understood as something people in general would be inclined to believe is accurate. And whatever is "universally" understood (which is nothing, nothing at all), it is most definitely a convention to write the actual approximate focal length of the lens on the lens.
But even if so I can't imagine f/5.6 meaning anything other than it says, which is also pretty clearly just plain wrong.
But that's not necessarily true. A true telephoto design will have less distance between the film plane and lens for the same image scale, yet is universally expressed as the equivalent non-telephoto lens focal length that would form an image of the same scale.
Of course this isn't such a lens, but that's not the point; the point is simply that this definition is also simplistic and not always correct for other cases where its use is well established.
Nothing is universally understood
Nothing is universally understood.
I beg to differ, the following are universally understood, +- =. In photography 1/60 or 1/500 is understood as the shutter speed. Likewise, the aperture on a lens is universally understood by the following f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 etc. The correct designation is small f/2.8 and not F2.8
Interestingly enough, you inserted the slash and used the lower case f in "f/5.6". Arguably, that is more accurate as a designation of the aperture than the "F5.6" on the front of the camera.
the following are universally understood, +- =
In photography 1/60 or 1/500 is...
When it comes to considering legal remedies, you need to put yourself into other people's shoes.
They are strange and vague because they don't say anything about referring in any way to lens focal length, or aperture. They are just (apparently) a distance measurement of some sort, and a number with an F in front of it. Or alternatively, they could just as well be a decorative element, copied from another camera.
We are likely to take them to mean something to do with focal length and aperture of a lens because they use a shorthand that we are familiar with, but that shorthand assumes a whole bunch of prior knowledge and applied convention, and that knowledge and convention is far from universal. And (Huss being a possible exception) we are not the target market for this product.
When you start thinking about suing someone or criminally/administratively charging them with an offence, good luck if the falsehood that you are alleging depends on an assumption that is only understood by a relatively small segment of the population - particularly if that segment isn't who the product is marketed to.
The language in the product description turns the assumption into a certainty.
Still waiting for it to become available so I can test it. And then send it back because it is not a 50mm f 5.6 lens.
Good luck with the lawsuit. We know it can't be a 50mm "optic" because it's WAY too close to the film plane.
And anyone can sue anyone else, but that's no guarantee of victory. The first thing is proving damage, loss, harm, etc. I read in the New York Times today that a guy is suing a boneless chicken wing restaurant because the chicken wings are made from chicken breast meat -- NOT chicken wing meat. The menu clearly states that it is breast meat, but the guy is suing for emotional harm.
Perhaps you can use the same approach.
Wow, Matt, I never knew that what I and a lot of others here regard as very clear to the "reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus" who is the often quoted person in U.K. law was so uncertain in, I presume, Canadian law and U.S. law Opportunities for legal argument seem unlimited
No wonder everyone wants to be a lawyer man in the U.S. Is it the same in Canada?
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?