[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR > wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR > lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one > of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue > of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance > between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also > the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even > then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right. > > Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the > greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the > competition. > > That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, > given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax > perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar > throat sizes and longer registers than K mount). >
I agree, even with SR the worst you are going to get is some vignetting in longish lenses, due to greater movement of the SR mechanism, and the whole optical path problem. > -Adam > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >>There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a >>really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper >>illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving >>the lens. Based on the performance of many of Canon's WA lenses, >>(zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of >>any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or >>Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage. >>Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear >>elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it >>has more to do with proper sensor design. >> >>Tom Simpson wrote: >> >>>Hi: >>> >>>Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that >>>the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? >>>Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue >>>is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a >>>35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of >>>lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am >>>hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to >>>work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic >>>range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an >>>either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. >>> >>>TIA >>>-Tom in SC >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
