If you can't figure out the optical path, you won't be designing lenses!
Perhaps if you are a sharp engineer wanting to create a great product
you look at the existing cameras, suspect that they don't really have
to be that large, notice that a small manufacturer is making a
different class of cameras which are much smaller and highly
respected, so you go about designing a system that is smaller than the
bigger companies. You end up making many photographers very happy and
yourself famous ...
-jeff
On 7/12/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeff Keller wrote:
> > Bringing back an old subject ...
> >
> So you are an engineer charged with designing a lens mount for not yet
> extant lenses that are to be telecentric for a certain sensor size.
> Maybe there are some lenses in the design stages, but you are designing
> a new standard that will, with luck, support many future lenses, many
> not designed by Oly. So you really know nothing except sensor size and
> telecentric lenses coming along.
>
> So what can you do but assume that, worst case, you need room for a lens
> element with a clear diameter equal to the diagonal of the sensor, held
> just clear of the movement arc of the mirror. So you take that diameter,
> add for supporting structure, focus helicoid, etc. then add a little for
> safety.
>
> If you are any sort of thoughtful student of historical camera design,
> you will be aware of the many advantages Canyon got with the extra large
> diameter of the EF mount and will be generous with the "safety margin".
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|