Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: lipstick on a pig?

Subject: [OM] Re: lipstick on a pig?
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 08:01:35 -0400
The focal length would only be the determining factor if the lens was a 
simple lens.  You may have noticed that 7-14mm is way shorter than the 
distance from rear element to the focal plane.  Any lens with focal 
length less than the registration distance is of what's called 
retrofocus design.  Basically a projector to get the image back where it 
needs to be.  Can't be closer because of the mirror.

There's nothing wrong with Oly's comments about needing a large diameter 
mount.  It's just that it's not the only way to skin a cat and it took 
them a long, long time to try to prove the point.  Since the point was 
so important to 4/3 design and marketing I'd have thought the 7-14 would 
have been available on day one.

Chuck Norcutt

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> On a related point, the very long delay in producing the 7-14 made
>> me very suspicious of Oly's claims of superior wide angle
>> performance for 4/3 digital. Remember all that market speak about
>> digital wide angle lens mounts needing to be large relative to the
>> sensor size? Light rays need to strike the sensor more nearly
>> perpendicular than for film. The very lens that was required to
>> prove the claim was non-existent for a very long time after the E-1
>> hit the market.
> 
> 
> I've never bought this, since the angle at which the rays strike the
> film or sensor is determined by the lens's focal length, and nothing
> else -- as far as I can tell. How can you change that angle without
> changing the focal length?


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz