At 12:56 PM +0000 11/7/03, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:58:50 -0800
>From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] E-1 first impressions
>
>
>On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 02:37 AM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
> >> Notice that Can*n already had
> >> to redesign the mirror action in the 300D to accomodate
> >> optical needs.
> >
> > I thought the retrofocus was also necessary so that the light was
> > hitting the sensor (almost) square on. If you put the rear element too
> > close to the sensor the angle won't be right.
>
>That is what Olympus said. Hmmmm. Actually Leica has said the same
>thing. They said that their rangefinder lenses will not work well on an
>M camera modified for a digital back. Some one told me that the
>physical location of the rear lens element was unimportant because it
>can be designed so that parallel rays emerge from a virtual point
>farther away.
Yes, they can do that. This is just another way to describe a telecentric lens.
>Seems like magic to me. But I am an idiot about these things.
No, it *is* magic.
>The story I heard was that the optical needs acccomodated by the
>redesign of the 300D mirror were just to adapt an older lens design
>from their discontinued APS film slr. Waste not, want not. Or marketing
>is all. Get to the market place first even if it is not the ideal solution.
Sounds plausible to me. And the lens for the APS camera probably was not
telecentric, but maybe close enough after some tweaking.
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 >
|