Sigma lens design trickery? (Page 3): ??????????????

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Bram boy wrote:

It all boils down to it's a better system that was used not tricker , it took
Some thinking on sigma's pert to come up with it . Why didn't nikon or
Canon , Olympus do it first . If it works all the more power ti sigma for
Doing it first . Can they patent that or can the rest do it now . ?

??????????????

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

robertjerl wrote:

That is exactly what a FF lens on an APS-C body does.
Old trick, works well, all you get is the sweet spot.

It may be a myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Bram boy wrote:

It all boils down to it's a better system that was used not tricker , it took
Some thinking on sigma's pert to come up with it . Why didn't nikon or
Canon , Olympus do it first . If it works all the more power ti sigma for
Doing it first . Can they patent that or can the rest do it now . ?

It would not be patentable. That sort of thing-- altering a lens design to accomodate a smaller film size at a smaller field of view-- has been done for decades.

GAH1944 Loc: SW Mich.

dsmeltz wrote:

I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! Those b*st**ds in Detroit... (show quote)

I like the way you think !--
:thumbup:

Leitz Loc: Solms

flip1948 wrote:

Let me preface this by saying I have looked at a n... (show quote)

Hearing voices, are we?

rbfanman

So? If you get what you want, image wise, does it matter how it is done?

brucew29 Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Vargnel wrote:

Round lens, square sensor......mmmmm

You might have something there... round sensors!!! :mrgreen:
Someone will probably come up with the last laugh and start making round sensors but then we would have round pics!!! I guess you can get use to anything... eventually... if you don't have a choice!!! :-(

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

flip1948 wrote:

Let me preface this by saying I have looked at a n... (show quote)

When you think about it- the only reason that the sensor is not round is-thats the way it has always been. No reason that a photo is not round other than paper (prints) are not. But in faact pprints could also be round. Forcing a round lens to stimulate a rectangular sensor creates all kind of difficulties

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

boberic wrote:

When you think about it- the only reason that the sensor is not round is-thats the way it has always been. No reason that a photo is not round other than paper (prints) are not. But in faact pprints could also be round. Forcing a round lens to stimulate a rectangular sensor creates all kind of difficulties

Printers that print round prints? Frames for round prints? Displaying round prints on rectangular walls? Think about how you see things through your eyes - certainly closer to rectangular than round. I don't think you could make an argument for round prints that would convince anyone to buy a camera with a round sensor. Certainly, you could crop the round print to a rectangle, but then what's the point?

brucew29 Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

I am LMAO!!!

Vargnel wrote:

Round lens, square sensor......mmmmm

brucew29 wrote:

You might have something there... round sensors!!! :mrgreen:
Someone will probably come up with the last laugh and start making round sensors but then we would have round pics!!! I guess you can get use to anything... eventually... if you don't have a choice!!! :-(

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

lowkick wrote:

Printers that print round prints? Frames for round prints? Displaying round prints on rectangular walls? Think about how you see things through your eyes - certainly closer to rectangular than round. I don't think you could make an argument for round prints that would convince anyone to buy a camera with a round sensor. Certainly, you could crop the round print to a rectangle, but then what's the point?

I suspect that the point would be to be able to do square, landscape, and portrait images (and the non-square ones at a variety of aspect ratios) without having to flip the camera sideways. I doubt that this is compelling enough to overcome the 'mechanics' of reading out a non-rectangular array of pixels (or, actually an incomplete rectangular array) It wouldn't be so bad as long as one were taking rectangular chunks out of the image and processing them. Making an actual circular print would require extra computation. This would be needed to properly place the subset of pixels on each line that are carrying information. (It's easy on a rectangular (or square) picture-- the first pixel on each line goes right below the first pixel on the line above it.)