View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1632 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:23 pm Post subject: Fast lenses & microlenses |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
Mark Dubovoy wrote on Luminous Landscap an interessting finding of DXOmark:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
Fast lenses are not fully supported from the camera sensors. Light rays that enter the sensor at wider angels are not fully absorbed from the sensistive areas.
That is not realy new - most who has worked with microlenses know that their quantum efficency depends on the light incident angle. But new is the big difference between the DSLR cameras - and that cameras seems to boost the ISO speed to camouflage this sensitifity loose.
Realy tragic seems their assumption, that the depth of field could be larger with the newer sensors / smaller. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
Interesting, although the open letter seems to blame CMOS sensors even if in the chart also CCD sensors are represented. _________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1632 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
Yes, I think the article is not very accurate.
I suppose this effect belongs to the microlenses - but I found that not in the document.
As far as I know, the marginal rays are not complete lost, but less effective in terms of quantum efficency of the sensor.
Take a look here on page 18 as an example:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/datasheet/fullframe/KAF-8300LongSpec.pdf
Interesting is the difference between horizontal and vertical angle.
At the moment I think, that the light damping of the marginal rays could get a better smother bokeh
But I am glad to have the old 5D.
The ISO boost is tested and verified. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
LL is a site where technical facts aren't always too accurate. - even DPR might be more solid This is yet another sample of such an article. For example he seems a bit clueless about why medium format cameras use CCDs - they are available, CMOS-sensors are not (CMOS-version would be an expensive stitchjob) - light hitting the sensor at an angle is actually a smaller problem with medium format due to the flange focal distance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I would want to read a white paper or two from the camera manufacturers on this same subject before I arrived at a conclusion. It seems to me that LL is leaping to a conclusion just a tad too quickly -- before all the facts are in so to speak.
Seems to me also that if the camera makers were really "gaming the system" wrt ISO increases, a substantial number of users would have detected the additional noise before now. My Canon DSLR is one of those that were measured on the charts, and it being the cheezy entry-level DSLR that it is, I can tell you with all certainty that it is easy for me to detect the added noise whenever I move the ISO from 100. It just doesn't handle higher ISOs that well. So, if this were really going on, I woud
for sure be seeing an increase in noise when I'm shooting with my f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses wide open -- but I see nothing of the sort, in fact.
I have pics I can share, and let you be the judge regarding noise, far as that goes. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
There is discussion on this at the LL forums, so I don't need to reinvent the wheel here. There were one or two posters who pretty much managed to make the article look rather silly and even contradict it's own evidence
Of course it is an exercise in the readers data mining capability to find the posts that follow logic and evidence, so I will leave that to you
(Summary: just disregard the LL open letter - it is paranoide "they are cheating us" crap.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1632 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
There is a simple test - I think it should work. Don't know all automatic in a camera:
Take a fast Canon EF lens, for example Canon EF 50/1.2, take a photo (iris full open) of - as an example - white wall. Full manual without AF. Illumination constant - not old flurosecent light (or take realy long exposure time)
Now release the lens mount button, unscrew the lens 20-30° - the electronics didn´t relaize which lens is on the cameraq now. Mak a second photo with the same parameters.
Some users in a German forum did this for me - and the normal image was a bit brighter.
Better only look in the center, in case the camera makes some vignetting correction.
I think the theory of this problem is true. I do not know how different leses are designed regarding telecenticity on the image side. With telecentricity this is no problem at all. Without it is. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1632 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
Anu wrote: |
There is discussion on this at the LL forums... |
What is that? Dont know it, and Google didn´t wants to help me
Edit: Found it myself - Luminous landscape itself. Did´t know they have a forum. The discussion on http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=36751164&page=1 is sometimes a bit boring.
I think there are to many people discussion without deeper optical know how.
A big problem is, that no one has the real data of the telecentricity of the current lenses. If the lenses are ~ telecentic on the image side, there is no problem. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
ZoneV wrote: |
If the lenses are ~ telecentic on the image side, there is no problem. |
Right. The problem with telecentric lenses is that they tend to be more expensive to make and need (in case of image side telecentricity) a large last element. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 Posts: 1397 Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
What I find interesting in the published data is that the 5d (old) sensor is the one where light loss is minimal. It might be totally unrelated, but the only thing I really liked about my 5D was its sensor: it has a certain quality which I cannot really describe.
I tried explaining it just yesterday to my boss (a Canon crop user) and the best thing I came out with is that the 5D images are more "luminous", less flat especially in contrasty/dark situations than all other cameras I've had. In comparison, my K-x has much better colours but images look more 2d and flatter, kind of like the difference between a beautiful watercolour (Kx) and a shiny oil painting (5D). _________________ My galleries
Digital: Samsung EX-1
Past Digital: Samsung NX10, Sigma SD9, Sigma SD10, SD14, DP2, Pentax *istD, Kx, Fuji S2 Pro, Canon 5D
Analog: packfilm Polaroids, 6x9 Kodak folders, Pentacon Taxona half-frame, Fujica ST605n, Walz Envoy, Olympus 35 S-II, Olympus Wide S
Past Analog: Polaroid 600se, Polaroid 110B, Canon IIF, various fixed-lens and Russian rangefinders, ...
Past Lenses: Nikkor 24/2.8, Nikkor SC 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/2, Nikkor H 85/1.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5, Nikkor Q 135/3.5, Fujinon 100/2.8, Fujinon EBC 100/2.8, Fujinon EBC 135/3.5, Fujinon EBC 200/4.5, Mamiya SX 135/2.8, CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 zebra, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, ...
altroformato
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
ludoo wrote: |
What I find interesting in the published data is that the 5d (old) sensor is the one where light loss is minimal. It might be totally unrelated, but the only thing I really liked about my 5D was its sensor: it has a certain quality which I cannot really describe.
I tried explaining it just yesterday to my boss (a Canon crop user) and the best thing I came out with is that the 5D images are more "luminous", less flat especially in contrasty/dark situations than all other cameras I've had. In comparison, my K-x has much better colours but images look more 2d and flatter, kind of like the difference between a beautiful watercolour (Kx) and a shiny oil painting (5D). |
I find the old 5D to be almost film like in it's rendering.
IMO of course. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
bob955i wrote: |
ludoo wrote: |
What I find interesting in the published data is that the 5d (old) sensor is the one where light loss is minimal. It might be totally unrelated, but the only thing I really liked about my 5D was its sensor: it has a certain quality which I cannot really describe.
I tried explaining it just yesterday to my boss (a Canon crop user) and the best thing I came out with is that the 5D images are more "luminous", less flat especially in contrasty/dark situations than all other cameras I've had. In comparison, my K-x has much better colours but images look more 2d and flatter, kind of like the difference between a beautiful watercolour (Kx) and a shiny oil painting (5D). |
I find the old 5D to be almost film like in it's rendering.
IMO of course. |
It in no way renders in any more film like than the more recent full framers, other than having lower resolution
Recording device itself is jsut as linear as all the other DSLR-sensors, and unlike film. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
Anu wrote: |
It in no way renders in any more film like than the more recent full framers, other than having lower resolution
Recording device itself is jsut as linear as all the other DSLR-sensors, and unlike film. |
Since I haven't used anything newer I can't comment on how they perform but I like what it delivers as it reminds me a bit of film. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 Posts: 879
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
bob955i wrote: |
Anu wrote: |
It in no way renders in any more film like than the more recent full framers, other than having lower resolution
Recording device itself is jsut as linear as all the other DSLR-sensors, and unlike film. |
Since I haven't used anything newer I can't comment on how they perform but I like what it delivers as it reminds me a bit of film. |
Actuall, you said:
Quote: |
I find the old 5D to be almost film like in it's rendering. |
This is diffeent from you saying what you just claimed what you said
But I guess we can agree that you meant what you said now and that digital cameras have linear imagers, unlike what film was (and still is ). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
You are being pedantic and straying perilously close to trolling.
Kindly refrain from the latter or I will lock this thread. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
bob955i wrote: |
You are being pedantic and straying perilously close to trolling.
|
I feel the need to agree here.
Anu, why is it a problem if somebody said that he finds a certain sensor rendering "film-like"? That's a perfect utterance of personal impression.
And there is no reason to prove that anybody is wrong here based on whatever evidence.
Please, let's get along together in a sensible and polite way, just as if it was the "real world", ok? _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10959 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
I agree that 5D rendering seems very similar to film. I also agree there are significant differences between sensor and film, the linearity of sensor, the non-linearity of film, sensor color metrics and film emulsion response to color, etc., which make the statement wildly inaccurate.
No doubt 5D1 is a great camera! I think it is the first digital camera to provide results similar to (nearly as good as) film.
I remember reading a few years ago ads from a camera manufacturer showing micro-lens modifications that minimize light loss due to light arriving at an angle.
The problem occurs when using lenses with large rear elements -- light from the circumference of the rear element hits the micro-lens array at a steep angle; some of that light gets lost before reaching the sensor. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|