CH,
At 3:52 PM +0000 10/10/03, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:58:50 +0800
>From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] E-1 lenses resolution vs. conventional lenses - fact or hype?
>
>- ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> > It's a tradeoff. What those manufacturers meant was that they produced
>the best resolution (for the price). Far better lenses are possible, but
>not at a price (or weight) suited to photography.
> >
> > As for the E-1, we do know something about the 5-mpixel CCD that will be
>used, the Kodak KAF-5101CE -- its pixels are square, 6.8 microns on a side.
>This is comparable to the resolution of silver-based film of reasonable
>sensitivity.
> >
> > So, there is no point in making the E-1 lenses a lot sharper than for
>film. In fact, lens resolution exceeding 6.8 microns will only cause
>aliasing.
> >
>
>As mentioned here many times the E-1 lenses are design for future, not only
>aim at current 5MP CCD. BTW, the anit-alias filter in the E-1 will take care
>of lenses with too high resolution problem. If you believe the MTF posted by
>Olympus they are much better than most 35mm format lenses.
But to be a bit cynical, it would make sense to come out with lenses matched to
the current 5 Mpixel camera body, and then come out with a far better (more
smaller pixels) in a few years, with the corresponding great-advance-in-the-art
lens to match. Then we the faithful get to generate a cashflow for many years
to come. The trick is to get the cost of initial entry down, to get us all
slightly pregnant.
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|