I went and checked that link (below), and it was enlightening... Then I
hunted up (thanks Google) the frame size for 16mm movie film... which is
approximately 10.25mm x 7.5mm within a couple 1/100's mm. I think that
roughly corresponds to a 2/3" image sensor as the sizing is explained at
that link.
Then to make thing interesting I went googling (is this a generic verb
yet...?) and found that 16mm movie zoom lenses come in some interesting
'variations' that might take some getting used to if translated into digicam
lenses... Such as: 17-102mm f2.0; 9.5-57mm f1.9; 10-150mm f2.3... I think
the 'normal' lens for 16mm movie is 20mm to 25mm lens (?) so this means one
lens can go from a considerable wide angle to a pretty long telephoto, in
the range of a 21mm-to-400mm in full-frame 35mm equivalent... Note that the
aperture is constant throughout... '400mm' f2.3 anyone?
The longest full-frame 35mm lens I've ever heard of is a Canon 35-350mm and
its not the smallest or fastest piece of glass you can handhold. I think a
smaller image sensor opens up a lot of possibilites in getting equipment
that can do what no still-camera has had capability to do before. I hope
Olympus goes for it... being late to market won't matter if you can get
pictures nobody else can give you.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
on 10/22/02 8:30 PM, The Bobbs at thebobbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snippo
> Nope. Check out this link (below) to see that a 4/3" sensor is _much_
> smaller than even an APS sized sensor, which in turn is quite a bit smaller
> than a full frame 36x24 mm. A lens for a 4/3" would be unacceptable for
> APS and one designed for APS would have the same problem as the D-30/D-60
> do with focal length multipliers when using standard 35mm format lenses.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp
>
>
>> If so, that makes four (Olympus, Fuji, Kodak being the first
>> three).
>
> Alas, no. It is a real shame that Pentax, Minolta and the three above
> can't come to agreement on one interchangeable mount. I don't think it
> will be a healthy for the "smaller format" players to fragment the market.
>
> At this point, the only hope for Pentax or "KodaFuPus" lies in quickly
> showing that a full "solution" (APS or 4/3 sensor, plus a few lenses)
> produces a imaging system which is smaller, significantly cheaper and as
> good (or better in at least a few cases) than the full framed
> competition. Otherwise, market momentum will settle in on full-frame
> sensors and they'll be roadkill.
>
> Pentax and OlyDak are not pursuing a common solution, that's a verifiable
> fact.
>
> My extrapolation that suggests both camps (APS or 4/3") will suffer if they
> don't quickly get a beachhead is just opinion. That said, nobody has
> released a spec sheet, so there is still time for a "backroom deal" to get
> everybody in one big tent. I hope that happens.
>
> I really want to see the "smaller is better" approach explored. A 300-600
> f4 of any quality would be an expensive monstrosity for 35mm. It could be
> entirely sensible on a 4/3" sensor.
>
>
>> Mike Veglia
>> Motor Sport Visions Photography
>> http://www.motorsportvisions.com
>
> Stuart
< 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 >
|