Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2, again
From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:26:47 +0000

So much for all the bullsh*t about angle of incidence at the sensor 
then eh! If the last element is almost touching the sensor the angle of 
incidence will be very large unless, I suppose, the periphery of the 
lens element is not used but then why would it be there?
Frank


On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 08:16  am, Eric Welch wrote:

> A MUCH shorter focal length. And have you seen the diagram of the 
> internals of the Digilux2? The last element is almost touching the 
> sensor. With longer focal lengths, and a shutter in the way, you have 
> your answer.
>
> On Dec 13, 2003, at 9:56 AM, eric wrote:
>
>> The body and lens dimensions look so very M rangefinder.
>> So again - Why can't they design a digital M body?
>> I know it has been discussed at length about angles of incidence and 
>> sensors
>> not up to the task - but what is so different about the digilux 2 that
>> precludes designing a body to accept M lenses?
> Eric
> Carlsbad, CA
>
> 'Never ask a man what computer he uses. If it's a Mac, he'll tell you. 
> If it's not, why embarrass him?'"  - Tom Clancey
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2, again)
Reply from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2, again)