Yes. Joe's recent post explained why the rear elements of lenses for
CCDs need to be proportionately larger than for film, thus the need for
a proportianately bigger mount. So the half frame analogy doesn't hold
in this respect:
"In this case, what's telecentric is the CCD side of the lens, and what
it means is that the rays (converging cones of light actually) coming
from the back of the lens are always perpendicular to the CCD surface.
This requires that the back aperture of the lens be a good bit larger
than the CCD surface. The reason it has to be larger is that an wide
apertures (low f-stops), the cones of light are very fat, so the lens
back must be somewhat larger than the CCD to get full illumination out
to the edges of the CCD."
Moose
Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
With a tiny sensor and that huge, gaping maw of a mount out front, why doesn't it
have a f/1.8 like the p&s? Am I missing
something?
< 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 >
|