Do you mean that current R optics provide a larger circle than needed for the 35mm format? This would destroy many claims made here that with 35mm format you use them to the full. .
But the idea of 4/3 in itself makes sense in the digital world - he writes looking up at his screen for mistypes ;-)
thanks for the insight Amitiés Philippe David Young wrote:
Philippe wrote:Bille Xavier F. wrote:sensor that would be a 27x36mm ? In this case the R optics could still be used.I doubt it - what would be the point of losing those extra mm?Philippe ... I think you've missed Xavier's point, and I think you, Xavier, may have hit the nail on the head!There are no missing mm, in a 27x36mm sensor A full frame 35mm is 24x36mm!By going to a 27x36mm sensor, you get a (slightly) larger than full frame sensor very close to the "ideal format' ... ie: a 3:4 ratio, which is very close to the standard 8x10" print that North Americans make with fewer "wasted" pixels. This is also the aspect ratio of the 4 Thirds system sensors... and very close to the 6x7 "ideal format" MF cameras.The 27mm distance is well within the image circle of current "R" lenses (for they must cover the diagonal of the , thus making it possible for Leica to keep current customers happy, while attracting new pros to the "ideal format" in a 35mm-ish sized camera.It's an interesting idea, Xavier. One well worth conjecture, for it would easily explain all the seemingly conflicting statements Leica have made about sensor size being "larger than full frame", in the coming R10!Cheers! --- David Young, Logan Lake, CANADA Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/ Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4 ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
