Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right.
Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the competition. That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar throat sizes and longer registers than K mount). -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > 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 >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
