Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best camera for manual lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
guardian wrote:
Can anyone help? Which Sony FF camera body has the angled pixels?

I think side looking (angled) pixels closer to the periphery of the frame (i.e., of the sensor) would help with my shorter focal length MF lenses. I do not want a FF camera body which has all the pixels looking straight ahead.

Also, does any other camera body manufacturer have this feature?


IMHO there is no Sony FF camera with angled pixels. That's one of the reasons for the problem with the wide angle RF lenses (besides the thick sensor stack issue).

Best FF camera in this respect is a Leica. There is no alternative to that.

If APS-C is good enough for you, then look for the Ricoh GXR-M which is IMHO still the only ever built camera which offers this feature. It was purely designed for the use with old RF lenses from the film age. Therefore color cast and smearing edges don't exist with this camera, not even with the first generation Voigtländer 12mm/F5.6 or 15mm/F4.5 lenses in LTM/M39 (which are known trouble makers, even on most other APS-C cameras).

Therefore either Leica (FF) or Ricoh (APS-C) or use lenses rather designed for these modern digital cameras which don't take care about the compatibility with old wide angle RF lenses. Anyway, there are some older SLR lenses which don't make troubles on the new Sony FF cameras. I'm using several Minolta SLR wide angle prime lenses (both MF and AF) successfully on my Sony A7R II (20mm/F2.8, 24mm/F2.8, 28mm/F2.8 and 35mm/F2.0). As already stated before, the A7R II and III models are better compared to most other A7-series models but still struggle with some wide angle RF lenses to a certain extent.


I've mounted a first generation Voigtländer 15mm/F4.5 lenses with LTM/M39 mount, on a Nikon Z6. No sign of any color problems and the corner softness is nothing more than normal.
Test shot to show corner detail:



PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dnas wrote:

I've mounted a first generation Voigtländer 15mm/F4.5 lenses with LTM/M39 mount, on a Nikon Z6. No sign of any color problems and the corner softness is nothing more than normal.
Test shot to show corner detail:


I have the same lens. Here is a test shot from my Sony A7R II with the CV 15/4.5 M39 and there are no traces of either color smearing or extraordinary corner softness as well:



PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
Like 1 small


Another aspect which appears to skew against Sony is diameter of mount. At least that is one of the arguments made here by a severe critic of the Sony camera bodies:

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

You have to scroll down in that piece to locate the discussion regarding the various mount diameters as related to IBIS.


I know it´s almost 4 years in the past, but did anyone notice the rebuttal to Sator´s article?

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/05/defense-sonys-pro-mirrorless-cameras/

I´d really like to understand why the diameter of the E-Mount could be too small. So far, I don´t.

I bought the Sony body solely for the use with manual vintage lenses. Mainly lenses for the K/AR and the OM mount. Those mounts have a diameter of 47 and 46mm in comparison the the E-Mount of 46,1mm. Fairly similar.
My lenses were all designed for full-frame, 24x36mm. Certainly, the projection area of any given lens is slightly bigger than that, or otherwise the moving IBIS system would have shifted the sensor beyond the projection area, causing missing information at the boundary of the sensor. It never happened so far, at least to me, with IBIS almost always on.

My fastest lens is the Zuiko 50mm f1.2 whose rearmost element has a diameter of 36mm. The 50mm f1.4´s rearmost element´s diameter is 31mm. This in relation to the size of the sensor (diagonal is 43,3mm) still gives a nice truncated cone with the slimmer side on the lens side, staying well within the 46,1mm diameter of the E-Mount.

I mean, someone could want to design a lens so fast with a rear element so big that it turns the truncated cone of light around, and then the E-Mount could indeed be too small, but aren´t we talking about monsters here already? Or is there a practical reason why Canon RF has a 54mm bajonet diameter, and Nikon Z 55mm?


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2022 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Or is there a practical reason why Canon RF has a 54mm bajonet diameter, and Nikon Z 55mm?


Maybe it's easier to clean the sensor?

Other than that there is no valid argument. As far as I remember correctly, the whole story was based on a fake article issued by a Nikon fanboy when the Nikon Z was introduced.
Leica has proven for decades that even 39mm are good enough for FF.


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2022 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Or is there a practical reason why Canon RF has a 54mm bajonet diameter, and Nikon Z 55mm?


Maybe it's easier to clean the sensor?

Other than that there is no valid argument. As far as I remember correctly, the whole story was based on a fake article issued by a Nikon fanboy when the Nikon Z was introduced.
Leica has proven for decades that even 39mm are good enough for FF.


Whilst the original (Sator's) article referred to was rather shall we say, "misguided", there are a number of situations where the larger bayonet diameter will be of an advantage, which are a bit of a niche use-case so for most photographers not relevant:

1) Optical systems with a very forward exit-pupil. E.g. bellows use or lenses that are extremely image/exit-telecentric. Here the cone of light will hit the film near perpendicular even in the corners, and optical vignetting in the corners may thus occur if the mount diameter is marginally on the small side, esp. for exit-telecentric lenses of large aperture.
2) Use of certain types of tilt/shift lenses (which may include tilt/shift bellows use). Optical tilt/shift systems where the centre of tilt employed is coincident with the sensor-plane rather than coincident with the exit-pupil (e.g. when you are tilting the camera rather than the lens), can cause significant vignetting when used with a smaller diameter mount system, especially if simultaneously used with shift. If you look at Canon's range of tilt/shift lenses you will notice that the centre of rotation of the tilt facility varies quite a bit from lens to lens. Some have the centre of rotation quite far forward (TS 90mm and TS 135mm lenses), likely near the exit pupil of the lens. The TS 17mm, 24mm and 50mm lenses have the centre of tilt rotation much nearer the sensor plane. I am unfamiliar with the design specifics of these Canon TS lenses, so don't know their tilt setup re. position of the exit pupil & optical centre of the lens, but potentially extreme combinations of tilt & shift could cause the image corners to be cut off if used on a small diameter mount system. A similar problem occurs when using bellows with a tilt facility on the rear standard in combination with an SLR, where the limited opening size on the deep mirror box can get in the way of the imaging rays.

Remember that in a mirrorless camera there may no longer be the depth of a mirror box to contend with, but there is still a significant distance between the sensor and mount, significant enough to potentially cause optical vignetting and image corner cut-off issues when used with a narrow diameter mount under the use conditions suggested above.