Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,234
Like?
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43
In reply to rrr_hhh, Mar 22, 2013

rrr_hhh wrote:

I'm fully aware of this I've had an Olympus XA for years, which is not bigger than the Minox. But things change when you speak of interchangeable lenses cameras allowing the use of fast lenses and more extreme focal ranges. I have used two RF brands (Leica Ms and Contax Gs). The limits come from the sensors and the need to have incident lights not striking at a too steep angle.

Much too much is made of that, mainly by people who have swallowed Olympus' marketing whole. For instance, see this test. Certainly there is vignetting, but that is relatively easily fixed, especially if you have spare DR. And this was on a camera without offset micro lenses.

Or else, tell me why it has taken so much time to Leica to produce a digital back for their lenses (hint micro lenses with a different orientation at the edge) ?

It was not difficult for Leica to develop offset micro lenses, Kodak had them off the shelf when Leica did the M9. The difficulty Leica had was being a tiny company with very limited capital resources, essentially what they did they did with off-the shelf components (the sensor was a new size, but just used Kodaks standard library cells), while the bigger players develop to spec. Again, Leica's marketing department will put whatever positive spin they can on it.

Why I could never get a digital Contax G ? and the brand went down ?

It went down because Kyocera (a huge corporation) took the strategic decision that they would make more money developing and selling camera modules for phones rather than high end cameras. Given the subsequent fate of players with similar market share, such as Konica Minolta and Pentax, they were probably wise. It has nothing at all to do with the ability or otherwise to produce a full frame sensor. In fact, Kyocera were the first on the market with a FF digital SLR, the Contax ND.

Why don't you answer to the two main issues : the angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor

Not a big issue with offset mictolenses, which most sensors now have. (Or the rather superior Sony asymmetric profiled micro lenses)

and the need to collect enough light to lower noise. Your compact film SLR pucture diesn't proove anything.

Of course, when it comes to 'the need to collect enough light to lower noise' it's about even, because the light collected depends on the angle of view and the aperture (size of the entrance pupil). So a 25/1.4 on mFT is doing the same job as a 50/2.8 on FF. The 25/1.4 is likely to be a double-gauss design, while the 50/2.8 can produce about the same result with a Tessar type design (with modern glass and aspherics) so the lens size will end up much the same.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow