Yep,
The shorter flange to sensor distance should enable very compact
designs. They also as you point out have no mirror about which to
worry.
It doesn't appear they are obsessing about a telecentric design
either---I think I read that on Imaging-resource. The Panny sensor is
a bit flatter
and less subject to trouble with a greater angle of incidence. They
can also fix a myriad of trouble with the onboard CPU and no one would
be the wiser. So what about a bit of neighbor pixel shading, CA or
increased cross talk from a non telecentric design? Mr. CPU to the
rescue. How bout a nice symmetric design with great bokeh for a change.
I clearly missed a bunch of points in a cursory read of the review and
glad others distilled it and commented. At least the E-520 and G1
comparison used the same lens. I never can make too much when
comparisons are made with diffferent lenses and sensor sizes with
differient
DOF as much as real world images are an absolute necessity for any
evaluation. I think the DXOMark data may prove to have interesting
complementary information with these reviews though they don't have the
G1 evaluated yet
Mike.
Where are the dramatic new lens designs to take advantage of the fact
that retrofocus design is no longer required?
Chuck Norcutt
usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Perhaps not too long a wait for a better choice. The lens roadmap
for
> 2009 lists a 14-140 f4-5.6 OIS, a 7-14 F4 and a 20mm F1.7
> Mike
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|