I am not sure about the argument about the angle of incidence of
light onto the CCD surface. As I understand it, with an OM lens on
an E-1, only the central portion of the lens would be used due to the
CCD's size and the angle of incidence would be more perpendicular
than it is when the lens is used for film in an OM camera.
--- Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 3:20 AM +0000 10/10/03, olympus-digest wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:19:49 -1000
> >From: "Danrich" <danrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: [OM] E-1 lenses resolution vs. conventional lenses -
> fact or hype?
>
> It's a tradeoff. What those manufacturers meant was that they
> produced the best resolution (for the price). Far better lenses
> are possible, but not at a price (or weight) suited to photography.
>
> As for the E-1, we do know something about the 5-mpixel CCD that
> will be used, the Kodak KAF-5101CE -- its pixels are square, 6.8
> microns on a side. This is comparable to the resolution of
> silver-based film of reasonable sensitivity.
>
> So, there is no point in making the E-1 lenses a lot sharper than
> for film. In fact, lens resolution exceeding 6.8 microns will only
> cause aliasing.
>
> What is different is that the KAF-5101CE CCD has a microlens on
> each pixel, limiting the allowed angle of incidence of light onto
> the CCD surface to something like +/- 5 or 10 degrees from
> perpendicular. How wide an angular range is acceptable depends on
> how much light falloff in the corners is acceptable. Anyway, film
> has essentially no angle restriction, so lenses with short focal
> lengths can be a problem with such CCDs, in that the corners may be
> darker than with film, and Olympus may not wish to attempt to
> explain the reason the the mass market.
>
> Even if the marketing types are unclear on the technical rationale
> and emit spurious arguments, I don't really think that Olympus Corp
> is trying to force OM lens owners to repurchase everything, even if
> that is the effect. Simply put, there are not enough of us Zuiks
> to matter in a photo market where the least significant digit is
> 100,000 cameras sold, and the internal debate at Olympus on
> production of an OM-E1 adapter probably turns on the likely
> profitability of such an adapter were it offered, and not on any
> possible effect on the larger market for the E1.
>
> Joe Gwinn
=====
Don Shedrick
http://groups.msn.com/firstlightimaging
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|