[OM] Re: Erwin Puts on the E1, Four Thirds, Olympus

[Jeff Keller]

There are plenty of people that "accept" that Olympus chose not to stay
compatible with their previous lenses. Not having to worry about legacy
compatibility frees a designer to get better results more effectively.
Olympus marketing chose to call their approach telecentricity. I don't see
anything offensive about that at all.

One of the much earlier discussions was ... why was the lens mount so
frigging large for such a tiny sensor? Every time I get a new digital lens
one of the first things I do is look at the back end. I've yet to see one
that requires the mount to be as large as it is. Most do not appear to have
wasted space only because the electrical contacts are comfortably placed
between the outer edge of the lens element and the inner edge of the mount.
>From a strictly optical requirement it looks like the mount diameter could
have been significantly smaller. They could have chosen the larger mount
because of the strength it provides to the larger sizes expected for AF
telecentric lenses or maybe they just stuck with the size of the OM mount
which fortuitously allowed OM lenses to be adapted to it ...

So if you want to have your cake and eat it too ...

- you can say your earlier film lenses work on your new digital C or N
camera ...
  (but they have limitations)
  
- you can say your earlier film lenses won't work on your new digital O
camera ...
  (but they do with limitations)

-jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winsor Crosby
> 
> 
> What is 
> particularly offensive is that Olympus marketing implies that 
> it is something they invented and apply to all their lenses, 
> designed for digital from the ground up and people accept it.
> 
> Winsor


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================