Rich Anderson - This one is for you!

On 12/14/2010 8:32 AM, Rich wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Irwell wrote:
Bruce wrote:
From photographybay.com:

"Olympus Modular Camera Patent Going Full Frame?"

But Four Thirds lenses could still work ...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b4dhko
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/1...r-camera-paten...

Doesn't Ricoh already have one of these?

No, the Olympus patent suggests a single, fixed sensor whereas the
Ricoh camera is basically a back panel assembly - with LCD, back/top
plate controls, a handgrip and a battery - to which you can attach
various combined lens/shutter/sensor assemblies.

I can barely make any sense of the diagrams but the link from there is a
little better:http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-...modular-camera...

On that page I see part of the concept is a film back, and teleconverter
to enlarge the image, now that is kind of clever and could be fun but
their claim of using an intermediate image to avoid aberrations sounds
like nonsense. Is that like the adapters for using 35mm lenses on small
sensor video cameras by projecting onto a spinning or jiggling ground
glass, to achieve shallow DOF effects only backwards?

Anyways if you had an m4/3 camera and lenses, it would be fun to have a
big cheesy inexpensive box camera that exposed polaroid film or
something like that (fig 3). But to pay thousands for a larger format
sensor to use with small format lenses is preposterous.

Hm.. ok, (fig 5) seems to be missing an SLR camera with the pentaprism
removed so the light travels straight up into the new top viewfinder and
the sensor removed so the light goes through the back of the body, into
a teleconverter and onto film (or a larger sensor). I suppose it would
work but is ridiculous. I'll give them credit for thinking out of the
box though :-)

My only objection is the interposing of additional optics to make it
work, which is rarely a good idea from an image-quality standpoint.
But they promised not to desert the 4/3rds people, and keep saying FF
isn't happening.

Yup! A simple meniscus lens has substantially better optical quality
than a multi-element lens. \end sarcastic tag

--
Peter

On 12/16/2010 9:35 AM, peter wrote:
On 12/14/2010 8:32 AM, Rich wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Irwell wrote:
Bruce wrote:
From photographybay.com:

"Olympus Modular Camera Patent Going Full Frame?"

But Four Thirds lenses could still work ...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b4dhko
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/1...r-camera-paten...


Doesn't Ricoh already have one of these?

No, the Olympus patent suggests a single, fixed sensor whereas the
Ricoh camera is basically a back panel assembly - with LCD, back/top
plate controls, a handgrip and a battery - to which you can attach
various combined lens/shutter/sensor assemblies.

I can barely make any sense of the diagrams but the link from there is a
little
better:http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-...modular-camera...


On that page I see part of the concept is a film back, and teleconverter
to enlarge the image, now that is kind of clever and could be fun but
their claim of using an intermediate image to avoid aberrations sounds
like nonsense. Is that like the adapters for using 35mm lenses on small
sensor video cameras by projecting onto a spinning or jiggling ground
glass, to achieve shallow DOF effects only backwards?

Anyways if you had an m4/3 camera and lenses, it would be fun to have a
big cheesy inexpensive box camera that exposed polaroid film or
something like that (fig 3). But to pay thousands for a larger format
sensor to use with small format lenses is preposterous.

Hm.. ok, (fig 5) seems to be missing an SLR camera with the pentaprism
removed so the light travels straight up into the new top viewfinder and
the sensor removed so the light goes through the back of the body, into
a teleconverter and onto film (or a larger sensor). I suppose it would
work but is ridiculous. I'll give them credit for thinking out of the
box though :-)

My only objection is the interposing of additional optics to make it
work, which is rarely a good idea from an image-quality standpoint.
But they promised not to desert the 4/3rds people, and keep saying FF
isn't happening.

Yup! A simple meniscus lens has substantially better optical quality
than a multi-element lens. \end sarcastic tag

Now I'm sorry that I can't find my family's old Box Brownie with its
meniscus lens.
Allen

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:45:22 -0600, Allen wrote:

On 12/16/2010 9:35 AM, peter wrote:
On 12/14/2010 8:32 AM, Rich wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Irwell wrote:
Bruce wrote:
From photographybay.com:

"Olympus Modular Camera Patent Going Full Frame?"

But Four Thirds lenses could still work ...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b4dhko
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/1...r-camera-paten...


Doesn't Ricoh already have one of these?

No, the Olympus patent suggests a single, fixed sensor whereas the
Ricoh camera is basically a back panel assembly - with LCD, back/top
plate controls, a handgrip and a battery - to which you can attach
various combined lens/shutter/sensor assemblies.

I can barely make any sense of the diagrams but the link from there is a
little
better:http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-...modular-camera...


On that page I see part of the concept is a film back, and teleconverter
to enlarge the image, now that is kind of clever and could be fun but
their claim of using an intermediate image to avoid aberrations sounds
like nonsense. Is that like the adapters for using 35mm lenses on small
sensor video cameras by projecting onto a spinning or jiggling ground
glass, to achieve shallow DOF effects only backwards?

Anyways if you had an m4/3 camera and lenses, it would be fun to have a
big cheesy inexpensive box camera that exposed polaroid film or
something like that (fig 3). But to pay thousands for a larger format
sensor to use with small format lenses is preposterous.

Hm.. ok, (fig 5) seems to be missing an SLR camera with the pentaprism
removed so the light travels straight up into the new top viewfinder and
the sensor removed so the light goes through the back of the body, into
a teleconverter and onto film (or a larger sensor). I suppose it would
work but is ridiculous. I'll give them credit for thinking out of the
box though :-)

My only objection is the interposing of additional optics to make it
work, which is rarely a good idea from an image-quality standpoint.
But they promised not to desert the 4/3rds people, and keep saying FF
isn't happening.

Yup! A simple meniscus lens has substantially better optical quality
than a multi-element lens. \end sarcastic tag

Now I'm sorry that I can't find my family's old Box Brownie with its
meniscus lens.
Allen

Proving you've never owned one. Because their lens is comprised of 2
elements in 2 groups with a leaf shutter between the elements. That's how
mine is configured, discovered when I cleaned and restored it to near-mint
condition.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:27:27 -0600, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:
: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:45:22 -0600, Allen wrote:
:
: On 12/16/2010 9:35 AM, peter wrote:
: On 12/14/2010 8:32 AM, Rich wrote:
: On Dec 13, 10:41 pm, Paul wrote:
: Bruce wrote:
: Irwell wrote:
: Bruce wrote:
: From photographybay.com:
:
: "Olympus Modular Camera Patent Going Full Frame?"
:
: But Four Thirds lenses could still work ...
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b4dhko
: or:
: http://www.photographybay.com/2010/1...r-camera-paten...
:
:
: Doesn't Ricoh already have one of these?
:
: No, the Olympus patent suggests a single, fixed sensor whereas the
: Ricoh camera is basically a back panel assembly - with LCD, back/top
: plate controls, a handgrip and a battery - to which you can attach
: various combined lens/shutter/sensor assemblies.
:
: I can barely make any sense of the diagrams but the link from there is a
: little
: better:http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-...modular-camera...
:
:
: On that page I see part of the concept is a film back, and teleconverter
: to enlarge the image, now that is kind of clever and could be fun but
: their claim of using an intermediate image to avoid aberrations sounds
: like nonsense. Is that like the adapters for using 35mm lenses on small
: sensor video cameras by projecting onto a spinning or jiggling ground
: glass, to achieve shallow DOF effects only backwards?
:
: Anyways if you had an m4/3 camera and lenses, it would be fun to have a
: big cheesy inexpensive box camera that exposed polaroid film or
: something like that (fig 3). But to pay thousands for a larger format
: sensor to use with small format lenses is preposterous.
:
: Hm.. ok, (fig 5) seems to be missing an SLR camera with the pentaprism
: removed so the light travels straight up into the new top viewfinder and
: the sensor removed so the light goes through the back of the body, into
: a teleconverter and onto film (or a larger sensor). I suppose it would
: work but is ridiculous. I'll give them credit for thinking out of the
: box though :-)
:
: My only objection is the interposing of additional optics to make it
: work, which is rarely a good idea from an image-quality standpoint.
: But they promised not to desert the 4/3rds people, and keep saying FF
: isn't happening.
:
: Yup! A simple meniscus lens has substantially better optical quality
: than a multi-element lens. \end sarcastic tag
:
: Now I'm sorry that I can't find my family's old Box Brownie with its
: meniscus lens.
: Allen
:
: Proving you've never owned one. Because their lens is comprised of 2
: elements in 2 groups with a leaf shutter between the elements. That's how
: mine is configured, discovered when I cleaned and restored it to near-mint
: condition.

There were a variety of Brownies with (I strongly suspect) a variety fo lens
configurations. You could both be right.

Bob

In article ,
Robert Coe wrote:

There were a variety of Brownies with (I strongly suspect) a variety fo lens
configurations. You could both be right.

In fact the same models were often issued with a msniscus lens and a
"better" lens as an alternative.

Some notable meniscus lensed Brownies:

Brownie 620 folder "Kodette", Meniscus fixed focus Anaston f/6.3

No. 3 Folding Brownie 124 film, Meniscus achromat

Six-20 Brownie Model C (Box) Meniscus f/11, 100mm

Six-20 Boy Scout Brownie (Box) Meniscus lens

These and many many other Kodak Brownie stats are at:
http://www.brownie-camera.com/index.shtml

(Not that this is meant to change anyone's mind ... after all when Das
Troll knows something he certainly never lets any pesky facts get in his
oddly psychotic ways).

shiva das wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:

There were a variety of Brownies with (I strongly suspect) a variety [of]
lens configurations. You could both be right.

In fact the same models were often issued with a [meniscus] lens and a
"better" lens as an alternative.

Some notable meniscus lensed Brownies:

Brownie 620 folder "Kodette", Meniscus fixed focus Anaston f/6.3

No. 3 Folding Brownie 124 film, Meniscus achromat

Six-20 Brownie Model C (Box) Meniscus f/11, 100mm

Six-20 Boy Scout Brownie (Box) Meniscus lens

These and many many other Kodak Brownie stats are at:
http://www.brownie-camera.com/index.shtml

I stumbled on this interesting article:
http://silverbased.org/anastigmat/
"What the Heck is an Anastigmat?"
-explains the central aperture SZ mentioned, the front element was just
so it looked like a lens since the aperture had to go in front of the
meniscus lens to correct for pincushion distortion. So the front element
is just a flat filter.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:24:44 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

shiva das wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:

There were a variety of Brownies with (I strongly suspect) a variety
[of] lens configurations. You could both be right.

In fact the same models were often issued with a [meniscus] lens and a
"better" lens as an alternative.

Some notable meniscus lensed Brownies:

Brownie 620 folder "Kodette", Meniscus fixed focus Anaston f/6.3

No. 3 Folding Brownie 124 film, Meniscus achromat

Six-20 Brownie Model C (Box) Meniscus f/11, 100mm

Six-20 Boy Scout Brownie (Box) Meniscus lens

These and many many other Kodak Brownie stats are at:
http://www.brownie-camera.com/index.shtml

I stumbled on this interesting article:
http://silverbased.org/anastigmat/
"What the Heck is an Anastigmat?"
-explains the central aperture SZ mentioned, the front element was just
so it looked like a lens since the aperture had to go in front of the
meniscus lens to correct for pincushion distortion. So the front element
is just a flat filter.

Almost all modern lenses are anastigmats.



--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

On 12/16/2010 9:53 PM, shiva das wrote:
In ,
Robert wrote:

There were a variety of Brownies with (I strongly suspect) a variety fo lens
configurations. You could both be right.

In fact the same models were often issued with a msniscus lens and a
"better" lens as an alternative.

Some notable meniscus lensed Brownies:

Brownie 620 folder "Kodette", Meniscus fixed focus Anaston f/6.3

No. 3 Folding Brownie 124 film, Meniscus achromat

Six-20 Brownie Model C (Box) Meniscus f/11, 100mm

Six-20 Boy Scout Brownie (Box) Meniscus lens

These and many many other Kodak Brownie stats are at:
http://www.brownie-camera.com/index.shtml

(Not that this is meant to change anyone's mind ... after all when Das
Troll knows something he certainly never lets any pesky facts get in his
oddly psychotic ways).
Ours was a true "box", 616 size, made sometime around 1910-1915, I
suspect, based on old family photos that happened to show it. I made a
closeup device of plywood for it--just another box that slid snugly
inside--a waste of time, incidentally. If it had a second element behind
the shutter I think I would have noticed it.
Allen