>>4133779You realize this is retarded, right? If the effort seemed justified, I could debunk this with a sheet of paper. The notion that they would intentionally waste silicon (the most expensive component of a camera), hobble their cameras with cropping and upscaling (but somehow make top performance numbers), all in favor of not making the bayonet mount a few mm wider is laughable.
You've officially earned the dunce cap. This is several levels below shitposting intelligence.
Will someone explain to me why the diameter of the lens mount is any issue whatsoever? Like, someone who actually understands how light is focused and images are formed.
While you're at it, go ahead and explain why, in spite of this supposed engineering blunder, the mount has the widest variety of glass, the best adaptability, and has many objectively fantastic lenses.
Also explain why you can attach a lens from a film era camera and obtain the exact same frame coverage results as any other full frame mount, if E-mount is engineered improperly.
