wrong, the closer the rear element. the more that forces greater NON perpendicular incidence angles to the corners of the sensor. It order to approximate true perpendicular incidence, the rear element has to move away infinitly from the sensor. Total opposite of what you just posted. jco
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction Putting the rear element closer to the sensor allows you to have a perpendicular light path to the sensor without going to an extreme retrofocus design for wide angles. This allows a simplified lens design for equivalent length and zoom range. The Light path only needs to be perpendicular from the last element to the sensor, which is understandably difficult with an SLR and it's relatively long register necessitated by the mirror box. That is one reason that C*n*n developed their EF-S mount, which allows the lens to protrude further into the mirror box, making the 10-22 easier to design. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER > to the sensor and its an improvement because that > means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor > at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which > is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ >
