Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Square or Rectangular Lenses, D70, etc

Reply
Thread Tools

Square or Rectangular Lenses, D70, etc

 
 
Tom L.P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.

I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
is why I bring this up currently.

That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.

The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
appropriate lenses.


Tom
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
stewy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004

"Tom L.P." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
> manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
> wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.
>
> I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
> is why I bring this up currently.
>
> That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
> will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
> design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
> feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.
>
> The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
> tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
> someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
> encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
> takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
> appropriate lenses.
>

I totally agree with you. These manufacturers are fobbing us off with round
lenses. I'm sure they can figure out how to make a focus ring square, also
the I don't mind al all shouldering the extra cost of milling off the unused
portions of the lens.
Now, let pray to the God of consumerism and pray he'll bless Tom with some
wisdom.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Axel Kurth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
"Tom L.P." wrote:
>
> I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
> manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
> wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.
>
> I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
> is why I bring this up currently.
>
> That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
> will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
> design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
> feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.
>
> The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
> tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
> someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
> encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
> takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
> appropriate lenses.
>
> Tom


you are a little late for Aprils fool day
 
Reply With Quote
 
misterfact
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
> manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
> wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.
>
> I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
> is why I bring this up currently.
>
> That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
> will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
> design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
> feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.
>
> The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
> tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
> someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
> encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
> takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
> appropriate lenses.
>


I have been arguing for this FOR YEARS. The truth is complaining to
the manufactures WON'T DO A THING. As long as there are enough
uninformed consumers buying these product like smoke alarms with cheap
DANGEROUS
batteries, or these cameras, THEY WILL KEEP GETTING SOLD.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 8:41:07 +0100, Tom L.P. wrote
(in message <(E-Mail Removed)>) :

> I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
> manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
> wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.
>
> I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
> is why I bring this up currently.
>
> That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
> will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
> design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
> feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.
>
> The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
> tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
> someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
> encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
> takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
> appropriate lenses.
>
>
> Tom


The thing is, round lenses allow for errors with getting the horizon level. I
like the latitude I get with round lenses because I know I can level it up
afterwards if need be. With a rectangular lens I would have to commit myself
at the time of exposure.

--
Joe B. (remove composer for email)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
The shape of the lens aperture bears no relationship to the format
shape. You need to study lens theory better. Every portion of the
objective lens contributes rays to EVERY point in the image format,
regardless of the image shape. Most lenses are round because that is
the easiest and best way to manufacture them. Other than wierd, special
astigmatic or anamorphic lenses, the overwhelming majority of lenses are
figures of revolution, with the generation axis coinciding with the
camera optical axis.

"Tom L.P." wrote:
>
> I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
> manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
> wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.
>
> I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
> is why I bring this up currently.
>
> That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
> will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
> design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
> feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.
>
> The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
> tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
> someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
> encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
> takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
> appropriate lenses.
>
> Tom


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Schmidt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
misterfact wrote:
>>
>>The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
>>tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
>>someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
>>encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
>>takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
>>appropriate lenses.
>>

>
>
> I have been arguing for this FOR YEARS. The truth is complaining to
> the manufactures WON'T DO A THING. As long as there are enough
> uninformed consumers buying these product like smoke alarms with cheap
> DANGEROUS
> batteries, or these cameras, THEY WILL KEEP GETTING SOLD.


Hmm a rectangular lens, don't know if there are manufacturing issues,
like getting grinders and other equipment that can machine square glass,
as most other lens types are round. I guess you could machine a round
lens then cut the glass into a square shape, recycle the scrap, build a
square coating machine. Focusing/zooming could be accomplished with
threaded rods attaching the square pieces together, hmmm guess it would
be technically possible.

How about the image sizes, films are often 2:3 where as prints are 4:5,
after 100 years they haven't fixed this yet..... I think using metric
sizes, and repeating the formula down to sensor sizes would help, given
a pixel dimension of x by y this sensor which is a by b and this sensor
which is c x d (but have the same pixel count) are considered the same
size, lenses are marked as equivilent to a sensor of a specific size (as
close as we can get to the diagonal of a 35mm frame).

Paul








 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2004
I don't know the optical terms, but trying to grind a smooth 360 deg curve
onto a square piece of glass would seem rather difficult to me...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Paul Schmidt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ikVcc.5844$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> misterfact wrote:
> >>
> >>The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
> >>tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
> >>someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
> >>encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
> >>takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
> >>appropriate lenses.
> >>

> >
> >
> > I have been arguing for this FOR YEARS. The truth is complaining to
> > the manufactures WON'T DO A THING. As long as there are enough
> > uninformed consumers buying these product like smoke alarms with cheap
> > DANGEROUS
> > batteries, or these cameras, THEY WILL KEEP GETTING SOLD.

>
> Hmm a rectangular lens, don't know if there are manufacturing issues,
> like getting grinders and other equipment that can machine square glass,
> as most other lens types are round. I guess you could machine a round
> lens then cut the glass into a square shape, recycle the scrap, build a
> square coating machine. Focusing/zooming could be accomplished with
> threaded rods attaching the square pieces together, hmmm guess it would
> be technically possible.
>
> How about the image sizes, films are often 2:3 where as prints are 4:5,
> after 100 years they haven't fixed this yet..... I think using metric
> sizes, and repeating the formula down to sensor sizes would help, given
> a pixel dimension of x by y this sensor which is a by b and this sensor
> which is c x d (but have the same pixel count) are considered the same
> size, lenses are marked as equivilent to a sensor of a specific size (as
> close as we can get to the diagonal of a 35mm frame).
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Ganek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2004
misterfact wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
>
>>I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
>>manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
>>wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.
>>
>>I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
>>http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
>>is why I bring this up currently.
>>
>>That link got me thinking, when will consumers stop being sheep? When
>>will we force camera manufacturers to give us products of efficient
>>design? Go waste your disposable income on a D70 or the like, and
>>feel happy (temporarily), is all they'd have us do.
>>
>>The happy contented feeling will wear off soon enough, we all know the
>>tune - in part because we know deep inside we were ripped off by
>>someone peddling products of incredibly inefficient design. I want to
>>encourage you to send email, letters, make phone calls or whatever it
>>takes. Now is the time for efficiently designed cameras, with shape
>>appropriate lenses.
>>

>
>
> I have been arguing for this FOR YEARS. The truth is complaining to
> the manufactures WON'T DO A THING. As long as there are enough
> uninformed consumers buying these product like smoke alarms with cheap
> DANGEROUS
> batteries, or these cameras, THEY WILL KEEP GETTING SOLD.


Only one problem. The shape of the image and the shape of the lens
are completely unrelated. Ask any photographer or physics student.

/dan



 
Reply With Quote
 
DM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-08-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> I've always thought one of the biggest rip-offs going is how camera
> manufacturers sell us cameras with circular lenses, much of which is
> wasted on in the resulting rectangular pictures and prints.


You really ought to study some physics, optics and lens theory before
demonstrating your ignorance and incompetence here. From your statements
it's obvious that you don't have a clue about lenses.

> I saw this link to a vehicle with square wheels
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/04/05.html
> is why I bring this up currently.


Hmm, and how many people use that bicycle? And how many do you think
they will sell?

Are you off your medication again? Or escaped the looney bin?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: PIL (etc etc etc) on OS X Kevin Walzer Python 4 08-13-2008 08:27 AM
SRT DIvision, Square root and reciprocal square root alghazo@siu.edu VHDL 0 05-27-2004 06:23 AM
Polar to Rectangular conversion Alexander Weddell VHDL 1 11-28-2003 03:46 PM
Can I make a java.awt.Window that is non-rectangular? Chris Berg Java 2 11-04-2003 09:02 AM
how to adjust/resize rectangular marquee in photoshop? peter Digital Photography 2 07-20-2003 11:09 PM



Advertisments