There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a
really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper
illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving
the lens. Based on the performance of many of Canon's WA lenses,
(zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of
any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or
Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage.
Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear
elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it
has more to do with proper sensor design.
Tom Simpson wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that
> the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR?
> Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue
> is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a
> 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of
> lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am
> hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to
> work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic
> range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an
> either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both.
>
> TIA
> -Tom in SC
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
