antiquark
Derek Ross
I think the basis of your argument is: film and digital will vignette equally.
Do a google search for "epson RD1 vignetting." The RD1 has more pronounced vignetting than film, even for the same lens.
All technical and theoretical arguments aside, that empirical datapoint shows that digital sensors and film have different vignetting characteristics.
Finder
-
Actually, is is not quite that simple. My Phase One back, with no micro-lenses, vignettes like film (so your RD1 information is not very helpful). Neither does my E-P1 show any unusual vignetting with a cv 12mm, which makes your Google sources questionable. But I would not apply that to every camera/sensor.
And what do you mean by "vignetting"? Mechanical vignetting? Natural vignetting? Is alignment to a condenser an issue with vignetting? What about recessed photosites?
If vignetting is not a technical issue, then what is it? (And if you have a "datapoint," don't you want to know why?)
(I guess my big beef is this "film thickness" hypothosis I keep seeing.)
NickTrop
Mentor
Despite the quibbles of enthusiasts, I think these EVIL cameras - this new Sony, the recently released Samsung, others sure to follow will be 4/3'rds killers. Larger pixels, larger sensor, better low light capabilities, less noise, more control over DoF... 4/3 rd's will eventually be a footnote. The whole point of 4/3 was to shrink down the size of the standard DSLR kit at the expense of IQ. Now that manufacturers have figured out a way to get the size close - I'm guessing due to improvements in contrast AF detection(?) (...could be wrong...), with a "cute/cool/retro" form factor that seems to be important to some... while keeping an APS-C sensor, at prices that seem to be better than the 4/3rds offerings - what's the point of 4/3'rds? Just my take - agree/disagree/flame if you will. Personally, after the usual obsessive deliberation that goes along with gear acquisition, I think the new smaller "baby" DSLRs - such as the Nikon D5000 (which is what I recently went with after much debate), offer more bang for the buck than either EVIL or 4/3rds - despite their decided lack of "cuteness". As far as "articulated screens" being an issue - I would revist that assessment. The one on the D5000 seems very sturdy. It locks into standard position and because it folds around backwards when not in use (and you can leave it in this postion, hard back facing outward when shooting, screen facing inward) it actually protects the LCD screen from cracks and damage. It's really nice to have this capability when you want it and find myself using it to shoot waist-level, overhead, low angles... pretty useful.
Last edited:
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
I think it will work with C-mount. That 18mm could well be 17,526mm, the flange<>film distance of C-mount. If not then a 0,5mm recessed C-mount adapter would fit nicely within the throat that I estimate to be 43mm within the clamps, 6 mm more than the Samsung NX10.
Lens coverage will be more problematic but the original 35mm movie frame is 18x24mm, slightly wider than this APS size.
If only they had added IS on the sensor.
This site is terribly slow today.
Ernst Dinkla
www.pigment-print.com
antiquark
Derek Ross
Phase One lenses are of a retrofocus design, which is more immune to vignetting. The E-P1 has a 2x crop factor which reduces corner vignetting. It might have other processing to reduce vignetting, I don't know.
It is a technical issue, I was just pointing out that a theory can be disproven by a counterexample. The theory here is that film and digital vignette identically, the counterexample is the RD1.
Not sure why that would be a problem. If a photon enters film at a shallow angle, it will still travel through the emulsion.
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting#Pixel_vignetting
NickTrop, I can see your point. I am hoping that the u4/3 sensors start to be used in super compact P&S cameras. If Ricoh made a GRD IV with a u4/3 sensor, I'd be all over it. But I agree that u4/3 doesn't seem as appealing at their current sizes.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
By "modern detectors" I mean CMOS and CCD detectors. They are indeed modern.
The sensors are thick. The photosites are not. This is not a difficult concept. The middle of a microlens is not photosensitive. The middle of a silver halide emulsion is.
In part. But that is not the major issue. The bigger issue is that each photosite on a CCD or DMOS device is capped by a lens. The DPReview discussion of the M8 like the other links that I already pointed you to, deals with this:
DPReview said:
I won't bother to quote the rest; you can go to the link. The point is that the M8 they had a serious engineering problem on their hands, and with the full-frame M9 it was even harder.
A camera designer gets a choice. Micro-lenses and (usually) problems with vignetting, particularly with short lenses, or no micro-lenses and a full stop or more decrease in the detector's quantum efficiency. The CCDs that I use on microscopes at work cost about as much as a Phase One for a 512x512 monochrome array (0.25 megapixels; whoopee!) and have QE in excess of 90%, due to the fact that they (a) are illuminated from the back rather than through the circuitry (this is done by etching away the sensor's silicon support so that it's very thin, and fragile) and (b) have microlenses.
The cosine^4 law gives you the best result that can be obtained in an ideal (not real) system. In practice, things are worse, mainly (but probably not exclusively) for the reasons I've already described above. You do understand that just because it says "law" on it does not mean that the cosine^4 rule is a complete description of a real system's physics. Right?
Puts has access to Leica's technical staff, and he understands the technical problems that they had to solve. The folks at DPReview agree with him. If these problems had been, as you seem to think, trivial, it seems very likely that Leica would have brought the M8 and M9 to market years earlier, and would not have had to use lens coding, a custom CCD with eccentric microlenses, etc.
It is obvious that the engineering issues are more difficult than you recognize, extending well beyond repeated and insistent application of a single high school trig equation. DPReview, Erwin Puts, Lloyd Reynolds, and many others in the "popular" press have written about these problems, and I've encountered no credible writer (i.e., not a DPReview comment troll) who has contradicted Leica's statements that wide angle rangefinder lenses made for film pose serious problems on full-frame solid state detectors.
Last edited:
nightfly
Well-known
Ah men.
The sensor of the GRD has always been it's weak point. Put a bigger sensor in and don't change the size too much and you've got the perfect compact digital. A wide fixed lens or a wide pancake or whatever around 28mm equivalent would never leave the camera, for me at least.
I would think since Sony is jumping in Canon and Nikon aren't far behind. I'm sure they are just worried about cannibalizing their high end point and shoots and their low end DSLRs but when those markets start drying up, they are going to be jumping too.
The sensor of the GRD has always been it's weak point. Put a bigger sensor in and don't change the size too much and you've got the perfect compact digital. A wide fixed lens or a wide pancake or whatever around 28mm equivalent would never leave the camera, for me at least.
I would think since Sony is jumping in Canon and Nikon aren't far behind. I'm sure they are just worried about cannibalizing their high end point and shoots and their low end DSLRs but when those markets start drying up, they are going to be jumping too.
cnewhall
Chris
In my opinion the design is ugly, there are not enough on-body controls, and that 18-55 lens is HUGE for a wanna-be digital rangefinder. I will stick with my GF1 and 20mm which fit in my jacket pocket.
NickTrop
Mentor
You should take a look at the Samsung NX, which meets your qualifications with their f2 30mm pancake lens. This was my thinking exactly - a smaller form camera with an APS-C sensor that has a fast fixed lens that never leaves the camera, and I came thisclose to snapping one (Samsung NX) up. I ended up with the Nikon D5000 and their recently released f1.8/35mm fixed lens (...which never leaves the camera, so I now have a "fixed lens DSLR" to go along with my fixed lens rangefinders) and don't regret it at all, however. After comparing the size between the Oly Pen 4/3 and Nikon in a camera store, I didn't see the smaller size of the Oly "buying" me anything and actually preferred the way the Nikon handled over the 4/3-rds. I don't see either being truly pocketable. In fact, I don't see any camera being genuinely pocketable - film or digital, unless it has a collapsible lens along with a pocket-sized body. So a more compact body becomes more of a preference/nice-ity... and from a practical standpoint it has to merely be "small enough" so you're not walking around with a giant conspicuous camera that's an annoyance to carry, so you'll actually walk around and use the thing. Let's say it should be "wrist-strapable"-sized, imo. I looked how DxO labs http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings rated APS-C DSLRs based on their testing, and the D5000 was the 2nd highest rated camera (Nikon D90 was 1st by a hair) in terms of IQ (including the M8) based on their testing - at least when I last looked, about a month ago. I like using that site to rank digitals because they're the "for-profit" maker of DxO Optics Pro, RAW processing SW, that is optimized to various camera/lens combinations, so it's their business to get these tests right. I assume their rankings are more credible than some amateur jabroney's subjective "take" on things shooting test patterns or who has a bias toward a specific manufacturer, or weights this feature or that higher/lower due to personal preferences. So, this camera gave me a "wrist-strappable"-sized camera (like the 4/3rd's and the EVILS), "as good as it gets for APS-C" (blows away all 4/3rds in DxO testing, expectedly, due to sensor/pixel size) IQ... and, the requisite fast fixed lens in the "normal" focal length range... oh, and a viewfinder and built-in flash at the expense of a "cool looking" form factor at a price (bought refurbed from B&H) a good bit less than the 4/3rds.
Last edited:
Finder
-
I think we are talking over each; neither quite answering each others points. I understand the technical issues--there is no reason to be condescending.
Sony's first EVIL cameras are rumored to be announced on May 11...
This forum might need to be renamed
Yes INDEED!
Stephen
antiquark
Derek Ross
Sure I have! It's an example of modus tollens.
1. If digital and film vignette identically, then the RD1 should vignette like film.
2. The RD1 does not vignette like film.
3. Conclusion: digital and film do not vignette identically.
QED!
See "modus tollens" above.
Photons are well established in science.
I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
PCB_RF
Established
I don't know if this corner-performance argument is hanging on semantics, but if I avoid the term "vignette" and use "corner performance" or "corner sharpness" instead, I offer this:
1. Many legacy non-retrofocus wide lenses have exhibited fine corner performance with film, for decades and decades.
2. Non-retrofocus legacy wide lenses often show softer or smeared corners on micro-4/3 sensors. Widely discussed and documented, here and on many other forums.
3. Retrofocus legacy wideangle lenses often have better corner sharpness than non-retrofocus legacy wideangle lenses. Again, well illustrated.
4. Leica specifically designs their sensor with angled microlenses at the corners to address corner-performance problems with non-retrofocus wideangle lenses.
5. Olympus stresses the need for a telecentric light path to maximize corner performance on their 4/3 and m4/3 sensors.
6. Telecentrically-designed Oly/Panny wideangle lenses lenses generally outperform legacy wideangle lenses in the corners on 4/3 & m4/3 sensors.
How is it possible to argue that film and _some_ digital sensors have no actual difference in corner sharpness related to lens design? Did Leica invest time and money for sensor modifications that were unnecessary? Is Olympus wrong in saying they design telecentric light paths to get the best performance from their sensors? When my C/V 15/4.5 has reasonable corner sharpness on film and smeared corners on my m4/3 cams am I imaging this?
1. Many legacy non-retrofocus wide lenses have exhibited fine corner performance with film, for decades and decades.
2. Non-retrofocus legacy wide lenses often show softer or smeared corners on micro-4/3 sensors. Widely discussed and documented, here and on many other forums.
3. Retrofocus legacy wideangle lenses often have better corner sharpness than non-retrofocus legacy wideangle lenses. Again, well illustrated.
4. Leica specifically designs their sensor with angled microlenses at the corners to address corner-performance problems with non-retrofocus wideangle lenses.
5. Olympus stresses the need for a telecentric light path to maximize corner performance on their 4/3 and m4/3 sensors.
6. Telecentrically-designed Oly/Panny wideangle lenses lenses generally outperform legacy wideangle lenses in the corners on 4/3 & m4/3 sensors.
How is it possible to argue that film and _some_ digital sensors have no actual difference in corner sharpness related to lens design? Did Leica invest time and money for sensor modifications that were unnecessary? Is Olympus wrong in saying they design telecentric light paths to get the best performance from their sensors? When my C/V 15/4.5 has reasonable corner sharpness on film and smeared corners on my m4/3 cams am I imaging this?
DougFord
on the good foot
[FONT="]If it hasn’t been mentioned already.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Along with the necessary adapter for an m-mount lens, an adapter for the proprietary shoe will be necessary. [/FONT]
[FONT="]A third party adapter, designed to integrate a standard hot-shoe interface in order to accommodate various optical finders for the given lens attached should be forth coming.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Along with the necessary adapter for an m-mount lens, an adapter for the proprietary shoe will be necessary. [/FONT]
[FONT="]A third party adapter, designed to integrate a standard hot-shoe interface in order to accommodate various optical finders for the given lens attached should be forth coming.
[/FONT]
Miserere
Find Ranger
Regarding the discussion on edge performance of film vs digital sensors, I submit that Antiquark, Semilog and PCB RF are correct. I say this with the backing of under- and post-grad degrees in the Physical Sciences.
As for the NEX cameras, I don't think they're aimed at the photographers populating this forum. Sony probably wants to make a splash with the P&S upgrader crowd, get some good sales at big-chain stores and make some money. Once they've done that, if they succeed that is, then I'm sure they'll release a NEX for the advanced photographer like you and me.
That's not to say this camera won't appeal to some in our audience, but I'm sure most of us would prefer a slightly larger body with enough space for some dials and direct-access buttons.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a NEX7 (or whatever they want to call it) announced at Photokina in September.
As for the NEX cameras, I don't think they're aimed at the photographers populating this forum. Sony probably wants to make a splash with the P&S upgrader crowd, get some good sales at big-chain stores and make some money. Once they've done that, if they succeed that is, then I'm sure they'll release a NEX for the advanced photographer like you and me.
That's not to say this camera won't appeal to some in our audience, but I'm sure most of us would prefer a slightly larger body with enough space for some dials and direct-access buttons.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a NEX7 (or whatever they want to call it) announced at Photokina in September.
Traut
Well-known
I posted this in the M8 forum a short while ago. I hope I'm not dreaming.
"I look at the new Sony NEX bodies and wonder how difficult it would be for Voigtlander/Cosina or another enterprise to adapt an M body to utilize a similar body as the NEX as a digital back.
The NEX is extremely thin in size and uses an aps size sensor. If one was to design the body/back to incorporate the "bulge" on the right side to extend rearwards instead of toward the front it would be completely flat. I don't know what the offset to the sensor is currently but that could be shortened in design.
If one was to remove the film door from an M body and incorporate some type of latching mechanism we might be able to accomplish the undreamable.
Since the digital back would be a constant distance from the film plane all the focusing mechanims and shutter should be able to be utilized.
The electronic interface would merely connect to the flash connector to get the signal to trip the backs shutter.
This is the same means the digital backs work on the Hasselblad.
The NEX camera body and lens is price around $600. THerefore, it could conceivably be accomplished affordably.
What do you think?"
__________________
"I look at the new Sony NEX bodies and wonder how difficult it would be for Voigtlander/Cosina or another enterprise to adapt an M body to utilize a similar body as the NEX as a digital back.
The NEX is extremely thin in size and uses an aps size sensor. If one was to design the body/back to incorporate the "bulge" on the right side to extend rearwards instead of toward the front it would be completely flat. I don't know what the offset to the sensor is currently but that could be shortened in design.
If one was to remove the film door from an M body and incorporate some type of latching mechanism we might be able to accomplish the undreamable.
Since the digital back would be a constant distance from the film plane all the focusing mechanims and shutter should be able to be utilized.
The electronic interface would merely connect to the flash connector to get the signal to trip the backs shutter.
This is the same means the digital backs work on the Hasselblad.
The NEX camera body and lens is price around $600. THerefore, it could conceivably be accomplished affordably.
What do you think?"
__________________
nightfly
Well-known
What do you do for a 28mm (full frame equivalent) lens on either the Samsung or the Nikon? Seems like any smallish lens you are going to stick on it is more like a 40mm or 50mm equivalent.
Bruin
Noktonian
I think the most exciting thing about this announcement is that now we have an EVIL system from a major camera company. Clearly, Sony sees its potential to attract premium compact and entry-level DSLR buyers. In the future Sony could add Zeiss lenses, EVF, an advanced amateur body, other body form factors, etc. Given the number of low-end Alpha bodies and their investment in sensor technology, Sony is serious about dominating this segment.
Remember, Sony makes full frame sensors... if there's any company that can engineer a full frame EVIL it's Sony.
Remember, Sony makes full frame sensors... if there's any company that can engineer a full frame EVIL it's Sony.