Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses

  
 
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


Gunzorro wrote:
***********
Just a reminder: the Inverse Square Law applies to the light thrown from the rear of the lens. The closer the lens to the image plane, the less and less light reaches the edges and corners -- it's a simple proposition.


Which is where one future sensor technology that has already been patented will come into play - curved sensors. Combine that with the benefits of the upcoming organic sensors and lenses will see dramatic changes in what is achievable for a specific size. Of course, we will also enter into a period of proprietary sensors with matched lens systems. Perhaps that will provide a nice financial boost for camera makers - a user upgrade of all lenses and bodies in a specific system.



Nov 11, 2013 at 01:42 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


+1 @ curved sensors and proprietary matched lenses. That will open up a whole new realm of capability UUWA. Just don't look for a thinner camera body.


Nov 11, 2013 at 01:50 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


Tariq Gibran wrote:
Which is where one future sensor technology that has already been patented will come into play - curved sensors. Combine that with the benefits of the upcoming organic sensors and lenses will see dramatic changes in what is achievable for a specific size. Of course, we will also enter into a period of proprietary sensors with matched lens systems. Perhaps that will provide a nice financial boost for camera makers - a user upgrade of all lenses and bodies in a specific system.


booooo to that. unless there is some huge benefit like an actual pocketable f/1 FF zoom or something i predict consumer response to new sensor tech that requires completely new lenses to be as tepid as the response SACD and DVD-A.




Nov 11, 2013 at 01:51 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


sebboh wrote:
booooo to that. unless there is some huge benefit like an actual pocketable f/1 FF zoom or something i predict consumer response to new sensor tech that requires completely new lenses to be as tepid as the response SACD and DVD-A.



At the high end, I don't know. Folks change systems all the time, even for smaller improvements. Professionals less often unless there is a dramatic improvement in capability. I suspect such a change would allow huge gains at the wide end for size + IQ.



Nov 11, 2013 at 02:02 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


As wide as a fisheye ... without the fish.


Nov 11, 2013 at 02:39 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


RustyBug wrote:
As wide as a fisheye ... without the fish.


Better copyright that before CaNikon or Sony uses it!



Nov 11, 2013 at 03:29 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


Tariq Gibran wrote:
At the high end, I don't know. Folks change systems all the time, even for smaller improvements. Professionals less often unless there is a dramatic improvement in capability. I suspect such a change would allow huge gains at the wide end for size + IQ.


just people around here, i don't think it's even a even a 1/10th of a percent of the high end ILC market.




Nov 11, 2013 at 04:44 PM
HopeIsEternal
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


No, not postage sized lenses. But fast (f/1.4 - f/2), short lenses in the 12-85mm range that are similar in size to M-mount lenses but with AF and electronic aperture control.

Also it is perfectly fine if these lenses are not sharp across the frame wide open. Users would be able to choose between fast & small lenses (with reduced across frame sharpness) and larger lenses that make less compromises.

I've used old sixties lenses like the Asahi/Pentax Super Takumar & Minolta 50mm f/1.4 and they are small, well built and sharp enough for most of the candid, portrait and general photography I would like to do. I even tested the Takumar against the Sony AF 50mm f/1.4 and the Takumar had better flare control and was just as sharp. I personally would be happy with compact FF CSC lenses that were as affordable, small and sharp as the Takumar 50mm f/1.4. I would be definitely unhappy with the size and price of the Sony 55 f/1.8 FE lens.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
No, future sensor technology will allow for smaller FF lenses. Give it 2-5 years. Everything is relative though so when you say "pocketable", "miniature' and "fast" in the same breath, are you expecting postage stamp size F1.2 lenses?




Nov 27, 2013 at 08:10 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


HopeIsEternal wrote:
No, not postage sized lenses. But fast (f/1.4 - f/2), short lenses in the 12-85mm range that are similar in size to M-mount lenses but with AF and electronic aperture control.

Also it is perfectly fine if these lenses are not sharp across the frame wide open. Users would be able to choose between fast & small lenses (with reduced across frame sharpness) and larger lenses that make less compromises.

I've used old sixties lenses like the Asahi/Pentax Super Takumar & Minolta 50mm f/1.4 and they are small, well built and sharp enough for most of the candid, portrait and general
...Show more

You can't directly compare the size of the Takumar 50/1.4 (one of my fave lenses, btw) to the FE, because the Takumar requires a much longer registration distance. That extra space has to come somewhere, whether it is in the depth of the body, like an SLR, or the depth of the adapter, like for the A7/R. Plus, the Takumar doesn't have AF/aperture motors, and it isn't nearly the performer of the FE 55 from wide open. You do have smaller 50/1.4 lenses that don't require as much registration distance, like the M 50 Summilux, but the Lux appears to have issues on "normal" FF CMOS sensors like in the A7/R. Plus, the Lux is only 10mm shorter than the FE 55, once you add the adapter.

Ultimately, you have to measure the depth of the whole system, not just the lens, to get a real feel of size differences. It would be cool if someone made a new set of collapsible FF prime lenses. That would be one way to get size down.

Organic CMOS will probably be the next tech that could improve sensor edge performance.



Nov 27, 2013 at 08:25 PM
Taylor Sherman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Practical minimum sizes for FF lenses


Back-illuminated sensors might help too, as photons coming in at steep angles will be more likely to just hit the appropriate photodiode.

I don't think curved sensors are going to happen in this decade. Even less likely for ILC systems, and they absolutely wouldn't do you any good for legacy/RF glass they weren't designed for.




Nov 27, 2013 at 08:50 PM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.