edwardkaraa wrote:
but why should Sony care.
Errr, 35/2 in size of 35/2.8, smaller 55/1.8, smaller 24-70 and 28-70 – it's not about leica optics, it is more about more freedom in optics design. Sony failed to achieve this so we have large or slow lenses.
Emacs wrote:
Errr, 35/2 in size of 35/2.8, smaller 55/1.8, smaller 24-70 and 28-70 – it's not about leica optics, it is more about more freedom in optics design. Sony failed to achieve this so we have large or slow lenses.
I'm only pointing out why the A7/r have corner smearing with M wides and not the Leica M, and what are the trade offs. Would Sony users be happy with IR contamination of clothing and purple skin tones?
Definitely they could have opted to not put the IR cut filter at all in front of the sensor, and incorporate it somehow in the FE lens design (like M8 users having to put an IR cut filter on all their lenses).
Which is better, I don't know, but I personally would have preferred an ultra thin IR filter and no smearing, but I'm probably not the typical client Sony had in mind.
Emacs wrote:
Errr, 35/2 in size of 35/2.8, smaller 55/1.8, smaller 24-70 and 28-70 – it's not about leica optics, it is more about more freedom in optics design. Sony failed to achieve this so we have large or slow lenses.
I am not too sure what exactly you mean by 'freedom in optics design'. Sony made a design/product decision and what we have got now is the result of that. From what I have read and have experienced so far, they have delivered on that. That is, light weight lenses with acceptable aperture sizes with good corner to corner performance/characteristics.
This also doesn't mean Sony can't evolve from where they are at right now. Hopefully as their expertise increases, alongside with Zeiss, will eventually mean more light weight, faster and better performing lenses in the future. Think about it, considering how long DSLRs have been around and Zeiss is able to pull off the stunning results of the Otus 55 which by the way is one big mofo.
I suspect it's not just an IR absorption issue, but also one of sensor (topping) durability. Remember the many M9s with sensor cracks (more accurately: sensor topping cracks)? Now imagine this in a popular consumer camera with 100x, 1000x the production volume, in a design where the sensor sits exposed ~18mm from the lens mount, and will quickly get dirty, thus requiring user cleaning.... To be fair, I have yet to crack the cover glass on my M9 and I do clean it myself. IIRC the M9 cracking problem was more or less randomly occurring and not necessarily due to physical contact by the user... but obviously there was stress on the glass that caused it to crack. I'm sure Sony would rather play it safe and not have to deal with such a problem.
Emacs wrote:
Errr, 35/2 in size of 35/2.8, smaller 55/1.8, smaller 24-70 and 28-70 – it's not about leica optics, it is more about more freedom in optics design. Sony failed to achieve this so we have large or slow lenses.
I'd like to think that Sony was more interested in the IQ of the projected image than a concern for size. The Otus gave little regard for size and achieved an optical design that pretty much speaks for itself @ raising the bar for the IQ. While the mirror may have influenced the size of the Otus somewhat, the quest for superlative IQ was still given credence over concern for size as easily evidenced by comparing the size of the Otus against previous "mirror" SLR designed lenses of similar FL/aperture.
While the removal of the mirror does eliminate one such consideration as a criteria restriction of the lens, it in itself does not automatically mean that the objective of the lens design is to be small. We can take a look at the (broad category) RF glass and their diminutive size vs. the results the produce with various issues of vignetting, color shift and/or smearing. If IQ is your primary objective ... and I would like to think that is Sony's primary objective ... then concerns to achieve same IQ in smaller package is trumped by the goal to achieve better IQ in same or slightly (smaller or larger) different size package.
For some reason people want to think that the motivation for the mirror removal is size related. The motivation for the mirror removal is lens design freedom. Sure, that allows a certain freedom to make a smaller lens, but it also allows to design a same size (or even larger) lens with its rear element void of concern for mirror interference (could this be part why the CV's are showing well).
In that regard I don't think Sony "failed to achieve" anything here. I think they succeeded at achieving their goals for superlative optical projected image design IQ (to play nice with digital sensors) without being restricted by the mirror (think Otus Jr.). If someone else had a different goal oriented toward size reduction, then Sony didn't align their goals with that of someone else. Imo, Sony is achieving their goal of having their camera and their lenses produce superior IQ results for the 24x36 format ... regardless of the size of the lens.
Going back to why the mirror was even put in cameras to begin with, it was to provide a WYSIWYG experience (sans parallax error, etc). The tradeoff for WYSIWYG was the additional design criteria for contending with the mirror. But the value of the WYSIWYG has clearly been one that historically has trumped concern for size (SLR vs. RF) for the masses. Now that EVF solutions have developed to a level (largely tolerable) that WYSIWYG can still be achieved without a mirror, the goals of optimal lens design can return ... but this time, they include the restrictions imposed by digital sensor toppings and micro-lenses rather than the restriction of the mirror.
Sony can always add a uber-small pancake or uber fast lenses to their lineup for those who have a strong desire for smaller/faster lenses. But I think Sony is aspiring to tell the world with their base lineup ... "look at our system IQ". I don't think they are trying to say "look at how small we made it" or "look at how well it plays with Leica's glass", etc.. The smaller package of the body (or any smaller lenses) and the adaptability to other lens formats afforded by the mirror removal is merely an ancillary benefactor to the real objective of optimal system IQ.
At least that's how my take on why Sony's lenses aren't as small as some may have been hoping for ... i.e. IQ trumps size and Sony wants to be known for superior IQ in the 24x36 FF format. I just wish we weren't having to wait for their glass lineup to develop ... but I suspect it will be well worth the wait in the end.
But I think Sony is aspiring to tell the world with their base lineup ... "look at our system IQ". I don't think they are trying to say "look at how small we made it".
Interesting and well made point.
it strikes me though, that they could possibly be planning to do both. All they would need to do would be introduce another high-end A7r with a thinner sensor glass and a couple of very small lenses to match it. From here, who knows, they could even introduce a Monochrom equivalent and blast all other 35mm cameras with resolution. Here's hoping.
rscheffler wrote:
I suspect it's not just an IR absorption issue, but also one of sensor (topping) durability. Remember the many M9s with sensor cracks (more accurately: sensor topping cracks)? Now imagine this in a popular consumer camera with 100x, 1000x the production volume, in a design where the sensor sits exposed ~18mm from the lens mount, and will quickly get dirty, thus requiring user cleaning.... To be fair, I have yet to crack the cover glass on my M9 and I do clean it myself. IIRC the M9 cracking problem was more or less randomly occurring and not necessarily due to physical contact by the user... but obviously there was stress on the glass that caused it to crack. I'm sure Sony would rather play it safe and not have to deal with such a problem....Show more →
Excellent point.
I think we need to wait for a curved sensor before we get a real improvement in corner sharpness.
Still it will need to be flexible to adjust for the long lenses. Not sure how it would work...
Also at some point you can decide to put more technology in the lens as well to work with a specific
type of sensor used. Hardware or software. At this point the "legacy" lenses will lose the battle...
Do you care about the absolute sharpness or the character of the lens? soon we'll have to decide...
We are still trying to get both, of course
This may be a daft sci-fi idea but I wonder how long it will be before glass lenses are replaced by interchangeable stacked sensor-layer modules thereby both eliminating the need for both glass and, possibly, the capture sensor.
p.116 #10 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
waterden wrote:
This may be a daft sci-fi idea but I wonder how long it will be before glass lenses are replaced by interchangeable stacked sensor-layer modules thereby both eliminating the need for both glass and, possibly, the capture sensor.
Not so daft, imo. Interchangeable lens/sensor combination modules ... i.e. RX1R with lots of interchangeable brothers & sisters. Curved sensors to match optical projection range for UWA/WA, flatter sensors for tele-centric optics. No more dust bunnies either. Keeping the optical to digital self contained and coupling at the electronic-electronic rather than coupling between optical and electronic makes a lot of sense to me.
p.116 #11 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
snowboarder wrote:
Excellent point.
I think we need to wait for a curved sensor before we get a real improvement in corner sharpness.
Still it will need to be flexible to adjust for the long lenses. Not sure how it would work...
Also at some point you can decide to put more technology in the lens as well to work with a specific
type of sensor used. Hardware or software. At this point the "legacy" lenses will lose the battle...
Do you care about the absolute sharpness or the character of the lens? soon we'll have to decide...
We are still trying to get both, of course
I'm sure that's why Leica's Mr. Karbe has been working hard over the past 10 years to revamp their current lens lineup to the latest lens technology to work as "seamlessly" as possible with the their latest digital sensor designs.
Can't be easy and takes quite a bit of time and experimentation. When I look at the latest Zeiss OTUS 55mm and see how big it is and then see what Leica is able to do for their M mount lenses I appreciate even more the M platform.
I understand a lot of the RF people's interest in "hoping" this new A7/r will be "the solution" to using their precious glass. But as we can see it is not the holy grail.
It will be lenses like the Zeiss OTUS 55mm that will be used to get the most from the A7/r's sensor.
So those thinking the A7/r will be the holy grail to a small RF shooting machine will have to be satisfied with all the work arounds to shoot your WAs or even 35/50mm lenses as compared to spending the additional bucks for a Leica digital body.
p.116 #12 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
RustyBug wrote:
Not so daft, imo. Interchangeable lens/sensor combination modules ... i.e. RX1R with lots of interchangeable brothers & sisters. Curved sensors to match optical projection range for UWA/WA, flatter sensors for tele-centric optics. No more dust bunnies either. Keeping the optical to digital self contained and coupling at the electronic-electronic rather than coupling between optical and electronic makes a lot of sense to me.
Then why did Ricoh's GXR module system get blasted several years ago for not being "very flexible". To comments like what happens when the sensor tech changes. You'd have to buy a whole new lens/module kit and not either or.
I think they were the first to make such a concept work with a lens/sensor combo tuned to each other.
You're still going to have an issue with dust. I don't think it can be prevented if you have a lens that has to move to focus. That's the benefit to an interchangeable lens system is that at least you the user can access the inside to do the cleaning yourself. Otherwise its off to a repair center.
p.116 #13 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
snowboarder wrote:
I think we need to wait for a curved sensor before we get a real improvement in corner sharpness.
+1
The distance/trig for a vector force to a flat plane corner will always present the same challenges for the optical projection. Zeiss (et al) incorporates mustache distortion to gradually "bend" things a bit in the glass to help with Zone C, but that is also a trade-off in size/weight to pull it off as well as they do.
p.116 #14 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
pandorf wrote:
Then why did Ricoh's GXR module system get blasted several years ago for not being "very flexible". To comments like what happens when the sensor tech changes. You'd have to buy a whole new lens/module kit and not either or.
Avante Garde rarely receives a good reception.
As the pace of sensor technology changes, the fear of sensor tech changes may lesson. We are already seeing a bit of a threshold @ 24MP vs. 36MP for many folks as 24MP being suitable for the long haul. While it might not be something that would be user serviceable, a sensor retrofit every 5 years wouldn't be the end of the world. We update our software faster than we change underwear ... we could just adopt updating our sensors too.
Definitely not something that is going to have immediate widespread approval and would be a paradigm shift ... but who know where it'll be 20 years from now.
But, I think we may have digressed a bit OT here ... back to A7/A7R and RF's.
p.116 #16 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
snowboarder wrote:
That's the best explanation I have found anywhere. Thanks Edward!
I think I'm gonna go crazy and try to find a Leica 19mm R. Life is short, right?
This + my 28 R could be a nice setup for wides....
I must have missed some R lens results since I have a 19mm and was going to have to wait to see how it performs on an a7r. Please steer me in the right direction to see some R fixed WA results on the a7r. Thanks.
p.116 #17 · A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses
algrove wrote:
I must have missed some R lens results since I have a 19mm and was going to have to wait to see how it performs on an a7r. Please steer me in the right direction to see some R fixed WA results on the a7r. Thanks.
Lou,
There have been few or none posted for R lenses (except above). We have the R lens thread, but I am not sure if any images have been posted with the A7 or A7r.
