OK,

I did a quick sketch to clarify what I said: 

http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/rearanglediagram.jpg

Later, 
jco

-----Original Message-----
From: Derek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 4:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction


Can I please get a diagram of this?

Derek


> Its very simple. If the working diameter of the rear element and the 
> diagonal size (format) of the sensor remain constant, then the further 
> the rear element is from the sensor the NARROWER the corner to corner 
> angle cone angle becomes eminating from the rear element and the 
> deviation from pendicular in the corner of the sensor becomes
> smaller (better) as the lens is moved away. Do not confuse
> this angle with the angle of view, they don't have to match
> and will vary depending on optical design...
> JCO
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: keith_w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
> 
> 
> 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)?
> 
> I don't understand.
> The light cone exiting a lens assembly will have a certain value, in
> degrees, total or half-angle, as you say, from the perpendicular.
> 
> Move the lens along it's axis toward or further away from the sensor, 
> to
> exactly cover the corners, it always has the same angle. The only thing 
> that changes is area of coverage. Not the angle of the exiting light
bundle.
> If you insist what you say is true, I have misunderstood you. Please 
> elaborate.
> 
> keith whaley
> 
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >    J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ------
> 
> 

Reply via email to