Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've only skimmed the messages relating to the problem of changed focal length in digital. I didn't realize the difference was so great. That is a problem. Having to buy new lenses to round out the ones that have become effectively less desirable will be costly and defeats the very purpose of wanting a digital M camera, re: using existing lenses on the new body. Sam S B. D. Colen wrote: > That's true Sam - I'm certainly happy with the results I'm getting with > the 4/3 sensor in the Olympus E-1. BUT - if you have a sensor that's > less than 35mm full-frame, you have a magnification factor for the > lenses you use if you're using 35 mm lenses. For instance, the factor > for the 4/3 sensor is just under 2x, which means that to get a 35 mm > equiv of a 100 f 2 macro, you're using a 50 f2. What that means in terms > of whatever body becomes available for the M lenses is that we won't be > using them at standard focal length - and we won't have any real wides - > For instance, if the factor is 2x, the 21 2.8 becomes a - ho hum - 42 > 2.8. The 35 1.4 becomes a 70 1.4 - which will be a great lens at a > weird, in between focal length...the 28 f 2 Summicron becomes a 56 f2 - > sharp as a tack, but not a great 28 any more...and so on. And if you > want anything wide at all, you're only real option would be the Cosina > 12 f 5.6 that isn't rangefinder coupled...and it would give you a 24 f > 5.6 without rangefinder coupling....Soooo...There are advantages to > larger sensors that have nothing to do with image "quality." And while > we don't know what size sensor this Cosepson will have, it's probably a > safe bet it won't be full frame.... > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html