Square or Rectangular Lenses, D70, etc

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tom L.P., Apr 7, 2004.

  1. Tom L.P.

    Tom L.P. Guest

    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
     
    Tom L.P., Apr 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom L.P.

    stewy Guest

    "Tom L.P." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    stewy, Apr 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tom L.P.

    Axel Kurth Guest

    "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
     
    Axel Kurth, Apr 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Tom L.P.

    misterfact Guest

    (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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.
     
    misterfact, Apr 7, 2004
    #4
  5. Tom L.P.

    Joe B. Guest

    On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 8:41:07 +0100, Tom L.P. wrote
    (in message <>):

    > 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)
     
    Joe B., Apr 7, 2004
    #5
  6. Tom L.P.

    Don Stauffer Guest

    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

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Apr 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Tom L.P.

    Paul Schmidt Guest

    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
     
    Paul Schmidt, Apr 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Tom L.P.

    Skip M Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:ikVcc.5844$...
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Skip M, Apr 8, 2004
    #8
  9. Tom L.P.

    Dan Ganek Guest

    misterfact wrote:
    > (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>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
     
    Dan Ganek, Apr 8, 2004
    #9
  10. Tom L.P.

    DM Guest

    (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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?
     
    DM, Apr 8, 2004
    #10
  11. (Tom L.P.) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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



    It is for this very same reason that I am having laser surgery on my
    eyes - not to improve my vision, but to have my inefficient eyeballs
    surgically mutated into one eye cube with a 2:3, horizontal-dominant
    field of vision. That should correct His inefficient design. Glad
    you thought of it; we are all much more enlightened.

    Michael
     
    street shooter, Apr 8, 2004
    #11
  12. Tom L.P.

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Generally, rectangular glass lenses are made by making circular ones,
    then grinding edges until they are rectangular. The most common
    rectangular lenses that I remember are those on many old hand slide
    viewers. There are also many rectangular magnifying glasses. Also,
    lenses in some camera viewfinders are rectangular.

    In the last half century most rectangular lenses have been plastic, and
    molded that way.

    Skip M wrote:
    >
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:ikVcc.5844$...
    > > 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
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Apr 8, 2004
    #12
  13. Tom L.P.

    Paul J Gans Guest

    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.


    This is simple enough to fix. Use a pro trick. Take
    a hammer and simple flatten the sides of your lenses.
    I'd check after every few blows to ensure that you have
    not flattened too much because the lenses are hard to
    unflatten.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Apr 8, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    478
    David Harrison
    Oct 13, 2005
  2. peter
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    12,626
    John Hawkins
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. CS2 rectangular marquee tool question

    , Sep 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    624
  4. Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

    Tiney rectangular pop-ups follow mouse arrow

    Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,047
    Borked Pseudo Mailed
    Jun 22, 2008
  5. Hugo Trebl
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    776
    Hugo Trebl
    Jul 19, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page