And very close to the sensor. I doubt it will work well I think that one of the early Leica 21s was also quite close to the sensor, or maybe I am thinking of an R lens.
There are two versions of the Hologon, and there are two guys, one with each, posting M9/MM images in LUF... Here's some from the converted G version. Just a bit down at post 796 is JeffoJeffo with the other version. BTW, JeffoJeffo seems to have access and resources to find some truly unique/interesting oddball lenses...
Dan, if you check out that LUF link, that is the impression I also get. The 15/8 doesn't have the pop of the 16/8, though it might also be down to PP technique.
douglasf13 wrote:
There's a big difference between making an aps-c sensor capable with M lenses vs. a FF sensor. It's a much easier job with aps-c, comparatively.
Douglas, I see your point but I don't agree completely.. The M9 sensor it's like the one in the M8, only bigger. It doesn't seems to be greatly modified ( apart from not needing external IR filters ).
Of course the angles of incidence are more problematic on a FF sensor but we'll use longer lenses in the FF to have the same FOV of an APS-C camera .Say a 24mm in APS-C vs a 35mm.in APS-C. .( or 16mm vs 24/25mm ).The question is if a ZM35/2.8 on a 'possible' FF mirrorless would perform worse or better than a ZM 25/2.8 on the GXR A12 M mount.
I'm convinced that if Ricoh wanted to release such camera it won't be a technical problem for them to have the same performances of a M9 or even a M240 for a lot less money than $7000.
Of course they'd need a Sony sensor tuned to their specifications, more expensive than the 'ordinary' 24 Mp sensor of a Nikon D600, but there's a huge price gap between a $2000 D600 and a $7000 M-240.
Nevertheless, I don't see that FF Ricoh appearing in the immediate future and possibly never. My bet is that they have decided to let die the GXR system in a slow and painless way.
carstenw wrote:
And very close to the sensor. I doubt it will work well I think that one of the early Leica 21s was also quite close to the sensor, or maybe I am thinking of an R lens.
The R 21mm 3.4 Super Angulon (not the f4 Super Angulon) extends deep into the camera and should not be used with an R camera body. I believe it was OK for all of the Leicaflex models, but I am unsure. I remember a store on ebay years ago selling these lenses on line indicating there was no problem with the mirror of an R body hitting the lens (I believe the mirror had to be up on an R body. We got into a bit of a fight over this. I indicated in messages that Leica states not to use the lens with R Bodies. This was confirmed by my friend Jim Lager, the author of 8 Leica books. Anyway, the seller told to me to stay out of his business and that the lens was fine on R bodies and I should not bother him or potential buyers about this.
artur5 wrote:
Douglas, I see your point but I don't agree completely.. The M9 sensor it's like the one in the M8, only bigger. It doesn't seems to be greatly modified ( apart from not needing external IR filters ).
Of course the angles of incidence are more problematic on a FF sensor but we'll use longer lenses in the FF to have the same FOV of an APS-C camera .Say a 24mm in APS-C vs a 35mm.in APS-C. .( or 16mm vs 24/25mm ).The question is if a ZM35/2.8 on a 'possible' FF mirrorless would perform worse or better than a ZM 25/2.8 on the GXR A12 M mount.
I'm convinced that if Ricoh wanted to release such camera it won't be a technical problem for them to have the same performances of a M9 or even a M240 for a lot less money than $7000.
Of course they'd need a Sony sensor tuned to their specifications, more expensive than the 'ordinary' 24 Mp sensor of a Nikon D600, but there's a huge price gap between a $2000 D600 and a $7000 M-240.
Nevertheless, I don't see that FF Ricoh appearing in the immediate future and possibly never. My bet is that they have decided to let die the GXR system in a slow and painless way.
Leica had to further optimize the M9's sensor to deal with oblique light rays, simply because of the larger sensor size and thicker IR filter. The GXR M still isn't exactly perfect with M lenses, which is why they built-in the color fix option in the software, and, in fact, I'm not totally convinced that Ricoh did much to the Sony sensor at all, outside of removing the AA filter. All sensors have "optimized" microlenses in one way or another, and I'd bet it's mostly Ricoh marketing. Not saying that that Ricoh, or anyone else, couldn't make a sensor that works great with M lenses. I just don't think Ricoh really has much of a lead on it over anyone else.
My experience with the GXR is that lenses such as the CV15 and ZM21/2.8 have some blue edge color shift, which naturally is much less objectionable than the magenta/purple shift seen with the NEX-7. In many normal scenes it's not objectionable.
And as Dan pointed out, the M240's sensor doesn't just have shape-optimized microlenses, but the pixel wells are also much shallower than in typical CMOS sensors. Can Sony also do this? I guess it depends on whether there are any patent restrictions or the cost of licensing such.
I still believe it makes a lot more sense from Sony's perspective to primarily optimize the lenses for such a short register system than make the sensor broadly compatible with many existing non-Sony lenses. It will make buying Sony's optimized lenses more desirable, in line with Fuji's approach with the XP1 and XE1. I also wouldn't be surprised to see more reliance on software lens corrections, also similar to Fuji. SLR lenses at least shouldn't be an issue one way or the other. It's just those of us who like using smaller rangefinder and Contax G lenses. Is it enough of a market to concern Sony? I doubt it.
rscheffler wrote:
My experience with the GXR is that lenses such as the CV15 and ZM21/2.8 have some blue edge color shift, which naturally is much less objectionable than the magenta/purple shift seen with the NEX-7. In many normal scenes it's not objectionable.
And as Dan pointed out, the M240's sensor doesn't just have shape-optimized microlenses, but the pixel wells are also much shallower than in typical CMOS sensors. Can Sony also do this? I guess it depends on whether there are any patent restrictions or the cost of licensing such.
I still believe it makes a lot more sense from Sony's perspective to primarily optimize the lenses for such a short register system than make the sensor broadly compatible with many existing non-Sony lenses. It will make buying Sony's optimized lenses more desirable, in line with Fuji's approach with the XP1 and XE1. I also wouldn't be surprised to see more reliance on software lens corrections, also similar to Fuji. SLR lenses at least shouldn't be an issue one way or the other. It's just those of us who like using smaller rangefinder and Contax G lenses. Is it enough of a market to concern Sony? I doubt it....Show more →
Yeah, the CV 15 on my 5N was way better than on my 7, and, while still not as good as the GXR, it was pretty good, considering Sony likely didn't plan for that kind of performance with the 5N and rangefinder wides.
I agree about Sony sensors in the future. Lenses with long exit pupils, and potentially large rear elements, are likely the future. Even Leica themselves are starting to follow that trend a bit, with lenses like the 50 AA.
I think that one of the early Leica 21s was also quite close to the sensor, or maybe I am thinking of an R lens.