Hi Dan,
I see what you are saying now - use a smaller sensor and compensate for it
by odding optics (not a teleconverter though) or by moving the lens. You
can move the lens closer to the sensor, but I think that will totally mess
up the focusing, you'd basically take a huge hit in the minimum focus
distance, or may not even be able to focus the lens at all even at infinity
depending on how close you move the lens. Plus, you still need room for
the mirror, but I'm guessing you could get away with a smaller mirror.
The idea of adding optics between the lens and sensor is an interesting
idea, but you have another problem - the mirror box. I suppose you could
have the optics flip up into the mirror box after the mirror gets out of
way, but that will add camera shake, complexity, cost, and shutter lag.
Another option would be to get rid of the mirrorbox, and basically have a
digital K-mount rangefinder. You'd still be able to do TTL viewing by
using the LCD screen. I don't think this would be a very popular option as
the LCD screen would eat the batteries, plus it would be too low-res for
accurate manual focusing. Yet another solution might be to put the optics
where the shutter curtain is, so they will be out of the way of the mirror,
and have the sensor located behind these optics. It would easily be the
fattest K-mount camera ever, but without film transport it might still be
small, but definently wierd shaped.
My guess is that ideas like this have been thought of by the engineers from
the camera makers, but have been shot down for various reasons.
Todd
At 11:15 PM 2/26/01 -0600, you wrote:
>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]
>
>
>
-
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 .
