Notice something interesting about Sony R1?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> The lens on it isn't much larger than the one on the
> 828 which has a much smaller sensor.
> Is it about time that DSLR producers of 1.5x cameras
> stopped using clunky old second-rate 35mm legacy lenses
> and STARTED using digitally-dedicated lenses that could
> conceivably be much smaller??
> -Rich


I wish there is a way to eliminate this troll premanantly.
The answer is DX. If you want to make it even smaller and can put in an
F-type mount, register your patent and sell it to Nikon.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:35:07 GMT, "Roy"
<royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:

>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:3fs3i1hijsabcm834ic3p23hc1igna5uvb@4ax.com...
>> The lens on it isn't much larger than the one on the
>> 828 which has a much smaller sensor.
>> Is it about time that DSLR producers of 1.5x cameras
>> stopped using clunky old second-rate 35mm legacy lenses
>> and STARTED using digitally-dedicated lenses that could
>> conceivably be much smaller??
>> -Rich
>
>
>Have you noticed that there are still a fair number of people using 35mm
>film SLRs. Some also have DSLRs. They often tend to have a fair range of
>lenses, and those designed for Film, can be used on Digital.
>
>But the Digital-dedicated lenses don't work on film.
>
>So the Digital-only lenses on the market are mostly Wide to Standard Angle,
>because Film lenses don't give Wide angle on digital.

Oh, that's strange as Zeiss 18mm and 21mm Distagons work very well on
Canon 1DsMkII's. But we are talking about a full format (35mm) sensor
here.


****************************************************

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> The lens on it isn't much larger than the one on the
> 828 which has a much smaller sensor.

And on the other hand it _is_ much larger than the lens
on my Rollei B35 which has a larger sensor again. Odd, that.

- Len

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:3fs3i1hijsabcm834ic3p23hc1igna5uvb@4ax.com...
> The lens on it isn't much larger than the one on the
> 828 which has a much smaller sensor.
> Is it about time that DSLR producers of 1.5x cameras
> stopped using clunky old second-rate 35mm legacy lenses
> and STARTED using digitally-dedicated lenses that could
> conceivably be much smaller??

No, it's about time they make full sized square sensors and stop the stupid
cropping game.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:50:51 GMT, "Beach Bum"
<e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:

>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:3fs3i1hijsabcm834ic3p23hc1igna5uvb@4ax.com...
>> The lens on it isn't much larger than the one on the
>> 828 which has a much smaller sensor.
>> Is it about time that DSLR producers of 1.5x cameras
>> stopped using clunky old second-rate 35mm legacy lenses
>> and STARTED using digitally-dedicated lenses that could
>> conceivably be much smaller??
>
>No, it's about time they make full sized square sensors and stop the stupid
>cropping game.

Good point. They do, if you can afford a Hasselblad, Phase One, etc.
-Rich