Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/21

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Olympus vs. Leica
From: mark at (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sat Jul 21 10:55:27 2007

On 7/21/07 12:50 PM, "Rei Shinozuka" <> typed:

> i am with you mr. rabiner.
> from compact slr's like the OM-1, to the folding medium format
> cameras to the rolleiflex, engineers have done an amazing job
> of physically putting maximal light-sensitive area into a minimal
> volume of equipment.  even in the film days in the 80's, this quest
> for compactness began to recidivate, as autofocus and motor
> winding became de rigeur, and the apogee of film dumbness
> (small negatives from great black puffy bloated bodies) was
> probably APS.  
> with 4/3 cameras, i would think a normal lens
> should be about the size of a spool of thread.
> -rei

Your "normal" lens is a 22.5mm!

Well we know that Olympus Pen lenses looked like.
In size like Leica m lenses. Fatter.
So 4/3 glass should be half that.

But leaving it the same size gives them great lee way to make killer glass
designs. Like Contarex bulls eye glass.
 And or be quite lazy with them.

Olympus Pen was half frame format 18x24.
APS-C is 23.6 x 15.8mm which is close enough to call it as far as I go.

4/3 is 18x13.5mm with a diagonal of 22.5mm.

Takes real talent to miss your focus with THAT format!

Mark William Rabiner
Harlem, NY

Replies: Reply from tomschofield at (Tom Schofield) ([Leica] Re: Olympus vs. Leica)
In reply to: Message from shino at (Rei Shinozuka) ([Leica] Re: Olympus vs. Leica)