> The issue isn't quality, it's lenses. All of a sudden that nice 24mm lens > is a 36mm lens, and if you want a lens that gives you the field of view > that a 24mm lens on a film body does, you're going to need to get a 16mm > rectilinear lens, which don't come cheap.
That's just the point, Chris. They do come cheap if they're made to cover the smaller sensor. The point is that if you have smaller sensor and design a lens specifically to cover it, it will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a lens of the same focal length designed to cover 35mm. My digicam has a zoom that is, at the wide end, 7.1mm in focal length and f/1.8 in speed. That's because it has to cover a 1/1.8" sensor about the size of a thumbnail. Any idea what a 7mm f/1.8 lens designed to cover 35mm would look like, and cost? Just look at the Pen F lenses. You'll get a good idea of what lenses look like that have to cover only half of the 35mm frame. They're smaller, lighter, and cheaper. --Mike
