Are you sure that it wasn't Olympus that joined Kodak? It seems Kodak's been genesis of all the dippy, err innovative film formats of the past 1/2 century.
At 09:39 AM 3/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
on 04.03.03 4:28, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Thomas, > Still, you get double the reach, not to mention that there's no such > thing as a 35mm 600/2.8. you are almost right, as is Bruce R. in his posts. But imagine such a situation: Canon, Nikon or Pentax decide to produce special version of their DSLR called "Sports and Nature". They pack it with 4/3 CCD sensor so it got 2x multiplication factor. Now your FA* or EF L 300/2.8 becomes 600/2.8. And you know what? It is still similar size to Olympus 300/2.8, although these lenses (for 35 mm) can do circle of light suitable for 35 mm! That's why I say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could be, taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
> Yeah, this is a problem. I wouldn't buy into anything that doesn't > have anything wider than 28mm. And this is second problem of 4/3 system.
> I'll ask again: who else has signed on to produce 4/3 hardware? At first it was Kodak only who joined Olympus, but I've never heard of anyone else who would like to participate in this project.
-- Best Regards Sylwek
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
