Todd,
I guess I'm not expressing my idea very well.
What I was trying somewhat ineptly to convey is that there appear to be
*two ways* to solve the problem of preserving the traditional field of
view--i.e., your wide angle is still a wide angle regardless of wether you
chose to use your film body or your digital body.
One option is to enlarge the image sensor (what Pentax has chosen), while
the other would be to *reduce* the size of the image *before* it lands on a
smaller sensor. Hence putting an optic behind the lens mount, but ahead of
a less expensive but still high quality smaller sensor (more readily
available, too).The angle of view could then be kept the same and they
could use less bleeding-edge, oversized, overpriced chips and create a
larger demand for the resulting less expensive to manufacture bodies and
and a larger market for their existing glass.
It seems like there could be additional benefits to going with the internal
optic, as it might allow them to mimic larger or smaller formats by varying
the magnification or reduction of the image before it hits the sensor.
Maybe instead of saying 'teleconverter' I should have just said 'converter'?
It seems odd, to me, that with Pentax's main strength being optics, they
chose to go with the chip option instead of the glass option.
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>You have it backwards, unfortunently. With the Nikon D1 it is like you
>have a teleconverter, as it's smaller sensor is only half the area of a
>35mm frame. So a 50mm lens on the D1 gives the same feild of view as a
>100mm lens on a standard 35mm camera. This is one of the huge
>disadvantages to the D1, basically no wide angles. A 28mm lens on the D1
>is the same as a 55mm normal lens on a 35mm camera. That's why Nikon has
>recently released some hidiously expensive superwides recently (my theory).
> Throwing a 2x converter in the mix would give you a 200mm field of view
>from a 50mm lens fo 35mm, plus image quality would not be too great as most
>of the lens's resolving power would be wasted.
>
>An interesting solution would be a totally new SLR system, based around the
>smaller sensor. It would be like the Pentax 110 SLRs, by doing this you
>save on costs with smaller, easier to make lenses, plus you'd have wide
>angle lenses as you wouldn't be adapting lenses made for a larger format to
>the smaller sensor. But I'm glad Pentax stuck with the K-mount and a
>24x36mm sensor.
>
>Todd
>
>At 08:27 PM 2/26/01 -0600, you wrote:
>>Doesn't it seem a bit as though Pentax has gone about this the hard way?
>>
>>Their strength is optics, so why not take a high quality, but
>>conventionally sized (and reasonably affordable) sensor and stick it behind
>>a permanent internal teleconverter? That way your 50mm lens give the image
>>aspect your film customers expect, their lenses have the color
>>characteristics and whatnot they expect, and you can still sell it at a
>>price that more of your customers can afford.
>>
>>Is that too simplistic, or what?
>>
>>Dan Scott
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>Most of the price difference will be that full-frame sensor; the other
>>>electronics won't be significant (and, of course, there are the price
>>>savings by eliminating any mechanical components; film transport,
>>>shutter, etc.).
>>>
>>>I very much doubt if 24x36 silicon sensors will come down to $500 in
>>>a couple of years.
>>>
>>>The price/performance curve in the electronics industry is at least
>>>partially driven by the fact that the next generation chip with the
>>>same functionality is smaller, and thus faster (and cheaper). The
>>>cost of equal-area chips (like an image sensor of a specified size)
>>>doesn't drop anywhere near as fast.
>>>The regular component treadmill will increase the number of bits
>>>per pixel, the pixel density, and the readout speed. But the cost
>>>of the sensor will still be pretty high.
>>>
>>>The quickest and easiest way to reduce the cost is to go with a
>>>smaller sensor (like those in the Nikon D1 series and the Canon D30).
>>>
>>>--
>>>John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc.
>>>(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
>>>(650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
>>>Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die.
>>>-
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
