Actually, they were just early to the party. In the years between the E1 and
the M9, Kodak apparently learned more about microlenses than just about
anyone, probably thanks to oour tax dollars.
Bill Pearce
>> Obviously, the microlenses are different, and that does put a bullet in
>> the
>> Oly theory about tne necessity of telecentric lenses. Also, there may or
>> may
>> not be differences in the Bayer filters.
>>
>
> Actually, Olympus was correct. But the reality is, for the FourThirds
> bodies
> (not Micro FourThirds), the angle of incidence never gets severe enough to
> be a problem. I have found that with the E-1 and it's hyper-aggressive AA
> filter, that a lens with a very rear-nodal point a long ways from the
> sensor, the image sharpness actually improves. I also get more
> dust-bunnies, but that's another story too.
>
> The Bayer filter is different--just barely different, but it is. I could
> give a big explanation, but I'll pass right now.
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2787 - Release Date: 04/03/10
06:32:00
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|