On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
... The thing about the 24mm lens 'being' a
24mm lens has more to do with the lack of lens choices wider than
24mm, especially primes for those of us who prefer them.
The reason for this is the use of SLR lens mounts that constrain lens
designs for such wide angle lenses. There's little advantage to a
prime lens when it is just as fast, complex, bulky and expensive as a
zoom ... and performs identically.
This *is* the main thing that micro-4/3 (and other potential efforts
like the Samsung micro APS) solve. The 20mm mount register, 80% of the
normal for the format, means that compact, simple, high performance,
short-focal length lenses are much easier to design and less expensive
to make. The upcoming Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.8 seen in prototype
is smaller than the Pentax DA21/3.2 Limited. And probably less
expensive.
Frankly, I'm kinda interested in one thing about the D3/D700, which is
a native 10MP 4:5 option (with auto-cropped viewfinder on the D3)
allowing you to compose easily in a nicer aspect ratio.
Yes, that's a nice feature.
I disagree that Olympus is "stuck" with the 4/3 sensor. It's a smaller
format than so-called "APS-C" and so-called "FF", but so what? For
those who appreciate the FoV/DoF and size advantages of the format ...
and who are not infatuated with the "more bigger faster more more more
more more more" BS that marketing tries to stuff down our throats ...
it performs beautifully and makes superb photographs. I'm liking the
results I'm getting with the measly old 5Mpixel, noisy, slow E-1 an
lot. Not everyone needs to shoot at ISO 128,000 and 15 frames per
second. Or wants to.
And Olympus does seem to be making a profit on their camera line, last
I heard.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
