le to get away with a much smaller lens and sensor.
thumbs up for oly!
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: RE: Will Pentax join Olympus?
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 05:29:23 -0700
---
This is just B**t!
To get the same resolution fro
Well, who knows what's really going on in the mind of Olympus, but this
seems like a far fetched plan as outlined.
First - why would any other manufacturer design lenses for such a
system? Short of absolutely staggering sales, there just would not be any
percentages in designing lenses in a tota
Perhaps Pentax historians will correct me, but something like this may have
occurred during the great days of the SLR. The Olympus OM-1 (1972)
introduced a small form factor and used a series of relatively small,
lightweight lenses. Pentax, of course, followed a with small (K and M)
cameras, a
Two aspects of the 35mm SLR architecture make it a bad platform for a
digital camera: the mirror box size, and the image circle coverage. I have
no doubts that if you free lens designers from these constraints they'll be
able to design better lenses than those available for 35mm systems.
Ta
On 2 May 2002 at 11:28, Mark Cassino wrote:
> Well, who knows what's really going on in the mind of Olympus, but this
> seems like a far fetched plan as outlined.
It makes less sense to me from an economic perspective than an technical
perspective and that's pretty poor too IMHO. Maybe this con
On 2 May 2002 at 7:35, Mishka wrote:
> actually, it makes sense to me: afaik, the *lens* resilutions are
> normally in range of hundreds of lppm. so for digital, where there's no
> limitation set by film of how much contrast one needs to actually
> record those lps, once you have a sensor with hi
On 2 May 2002 at 12:26, Mark Erickson wrote:
> Two aspects of the 35mm SLR architecture make it a bad platform for a
> digital camera: the mirror box size, and the image circle coverage. I have no
> doubts that if you free lens designers from these constraints they'll be able to
> design bette
But the same question remains, "Are most 135 SLR users ready to dump all
their expensive lenses just yet?" It reminds me what happened to Minolta and
Nikon APS SLRs.
regards,
Alan Chan
>While Olympus expects to talk with other digital camera makers about
>standardization of lenses, it will re
erm 4/3 inch? Thats like 30mm by 20mm isnt it? Thats as big, if not
bigger than most DSLR sensors right now.
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Audun Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 02 May 2002 13:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Will Pentax join Olympus?
>
>
> From Phot
At 21:42 2.5.2002 -0700, Alan Chan wrote:
>But the same question remains, "Are most 135 SLR users ready to dump all their
>expensive lenses just yet?" It reminds me what happened to Minolta and Nikon APS SLRs.
Right!
If Pentax will come out with a new lens mount with lenses compatible only
with
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: RE: Will Pentax join Olympus?
> Oh, those well known lens manufacturers!
Fuji is a very well regarded lens manufacturer.
William Robb
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pål Audun Jensen
> > Subject: RE:
alent of 600/4 and very small, light and fast wide angle glass. I
see no reason to worry.
> From: Antti-Pekka Virjonen
> Subject: Re: Will Pentax join Olympus?
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 02:43:48 -0700
>
> -
>
&
On 3 May 2002 at 6:01, Mishka wrote:
> From what I understand, the registration length (or what you may call
> it) of the "new lens" would be a lot less than for normal SLR.
> Wouldn't a mechanical adapter (sim. to 645 to K and 67 to 645) be the
> answer? You'll get to get the best of both world
Rob,
By the same token, because one has spent tons of cash for 55mm 67 lens,
there's no reason to make 35mm cameras where 50/2 often comes for free
;)
Besides, the 35mm equivalent of 67 55mm lens is what, roughly 24mm?
There are tons of those available for fraction of what one has to spend
for a
Think of Olympus position this way. Canon and Nikon
are stuck with their 24x36 platforms because of their
huge user base while Olympus has been phasing out for
years. Olympus does a little research and finds that
it is difficult to produce 24x36 CCD or CMOS sensors
even given significant evolution
Kodak made some world class lenses over the years and I'm sure they have ample
resourses to do so again.
I have a 100mm "luminized" (single coated) Ektar on my 3x4 Speed Graphic and it's a
truly fabulous lens.
>>Oh, those well known lens manufacturers!
>
> >As far as I can see, this is curre
Mishka wrote:
>To the point: if there'll be small and light and fast and inexpensive
>wide angle glass for the new format, hell, I wouldn't mind spending a
>hundred bucks for a top-notch equivalent of 35mm 20/2 that's half the
>size and weight.
That's my position as well. I never been convince
Warren wrote:
>Further they find that they can
>design and sell an equivalent 17-35/2, 35-100/2,
>80/200/2, 300/2, 400/2.8 & 600/4 lens for half what
>the competition is doing in a system that not only has
>the same resolution and capabilities and weighs a
>fraction of the traditional systems.
> H. Pentax already has a smaller format mirror box SLR
system in the parts bin - remember the 110? And there are
several imagers out there aboyut the size of a 110 frame! Holy
hotcakes, Batman, could the 110 SLR system be the basis for a
Pentax digital SLR!?!?!?
>
I sure hope not! I want to
On 4 May 2002 at 21:44, Cotty wrote:
> >Anyway, Pentax first digital slr will almost certainly be a K-mount slr.
>
> I hope and agree.
>
> One thing that bothers me about introducing a new form factor for DSLRs,
> especially those with interchangeble lens systems, I fear that because
> the le
>Basically there is a using size and a transporting size. The two are
>not the same.
LOL! Bruce, ain't that the truth.
Cotty
___
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads
h
Rob wrote:
>Neither do I fully accept the notion that the new digital interchangeable
>lens
>SLR concept previously under discussion will provide a truly compelling
>advantage due to it's slightly smaller relative size over 35mm compatible
>digital SLRs. Lets face it many people lug about a Nik
Bruce wrote:
>Basically there is a using size and a transporting size. The two are
>not the same
The problem isn't necessarily size (within reason) but weight. I have yet
to meet anyone who doesn't wish that their super telephotos were smaller
and lighter.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pe
PAJ> True. Big size sells. However, price may be a decisive factor. Smaller CCD
PAJ> and smaller lenses translate into lower prices. If the consortium is
PAJ> successful in standardization it will also translate into lower prices.
PAJ> Small super telephoto lenses will definitely have an impact o
24 matches
Mail list logo
