Especially since Akira Watanabe says: ""When it comes to picture quality
- it's not about the sensor - it's the optical performance of the lenses
that is most important to us..."
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061600watanabeinterview.asp>
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
>>> Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> No matter how you slice it, a 17mm lens is difficult to make in any format.
>>> Had they designed it for optical
>>> performance, the lens would be comparable in size to an old Zuiko 24/2.8
>>>
>
> I'm with Wayne on this one. Making a 17mm lens for 4/3 size film would
> be pretty straightforward, a nice little D-G would do, and much simpler
> than making a retrofocus 24/2.8 for FF film.
>
> In the case at hand, as you say in your detail, the problem is the
> sensor. If the sensor requires relatively parallel rays striking it,
> then the lens design becomes more complex, probably relatively large,
> heavy and retrofocus. But that's a specific problem, not a general
> problem with that focal length in all uses.
>
> It will be interesting to see if the problem seen in the one image is
> general and if firmware can fix it.
>
> Moose
>
>>> Dunno about that Ken !
>>>
>>> What about the lenses for 16mm movie cameras, the coverage requirements are
>>> similar and there have been high quality lenses available for much longer
>>> than my lifetime.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|