It's more a matter of getting a larger register distance, so the light doesn't strike the sensor at as much of an oblique angle. (And, in particular, so that the angle doesn't vary as much from lens to lens; that's one significant contributor to chromatic aberration as you get away from the center of the sensor).
Bob Blakely mused: > > I've heard this before and dismissed it, but after some cogitating, I can't > see why the 24x36 mm digital array needs a larger lens mount that a 24x36 mm > area of film. I'm an engineer, so don't you explain the physics to me. > > Regards, > Bob... > ------------------------------------------------ > "A picture is worth a thousand words, > but it uses up three thousand times the memory." > > From: "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> I told him I was waiting for Pentax to come out with a full frame. At > >> this, the NotNikonIt guy next to him almost fell to the floor laughing. > >> "Pentax will have a full frame DSLR when pigs fly!", he said. I said, "I > >> think they're trying to train them now." > > > > Dude, he's telling the truth. And anyway, a 35mm-sized sensor on a dSLR > > requires a much larger lens mount to work as well as on film of the same > > size; it's just a matter of physics. This is why Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, > > and KonicaMinolta are going with smaller sensors. If you look at all the > > facts, it just makes sense. > > > > If you must wait for something, I'd suggest only waiting for high-ISO > > noise to come down, because you're going to be waiting a *very* long time > > for a 35mm-sized sensor in a Pentax body. The current APS-C system is not > > as horrible as you think, and it's only getting better. > >
