R. Jackson wrote:
> That's a fascinating article. Thank you for posting that. His
> workflow sure looks practical. Canon lenses, though. Even he talks
> about the wide-angles being weak.
--------------------------------------
Is it that the wide angles are weak or is it that the wide angles are
weak in conjunction with the full frame digital sensor? After all,
isn't this what Oly was trying to convince us was the driving force
behind the 4/3 format?
According to the mantra you need a large diameter lens mount for a large
diameter rear element so that light striking the sensor is as nearly
vertical as possible. So, they kept the lens mount about the same
diameter as the OM mount and shrunk the sensor relative to 35mm film.
Now all the other guys have essentially done the same thing with their
original size mounts and smaller sensors. (eg: EF-S mount for Canon)
Here's an interesting question. Does the 20D using the 10-22 EF-S
(digital specific small sensor) lens perform better than the 1Ds or 1Ds
Mark II using a 16-35 lens? Probably can't be definitively answered due
to basic differences in lens quality but inquiring minds would like to
know. Perhaps a better comparison would be Canon 1D Mark II and an
E-300 (both 8 MP) each with comparable angle of coverage very wide angle
lenses.
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|