Matt Grum wrote:
The refractive properties of the filter stack cause a degree of field curvature that lens designers now take into account (attempting to induce the opposite curvature in the lens itself).
This was exactly what I was wondering a couple of pages ago. And if it's true, the filter stack should be the same thickness on both the cameras to work equally well with the native lenses.
On the other hand, why did they then choose to make the lenses relatively large?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
D800E using the same basic sensor and/ or ease of manufacture for Sony
Given the attractive price point of the A7R ... it would be of little surprise (albeit disappointing after the hype) to find this to actually be the case. Marketing, accounting and engineer folks don't usually all sit at the same table for lunch ... hmmm, at every wonder why?
Makten wrote:
On the other hand, why did they then choose to make the lenses relatively large?
edwardkaraa wrote:
This is what my camera dealer in Bangkok told me, and he has close connections with Sony. Also I remember having read it in one of the interviews with Sony guys but it would be difficult for me to relocate the source with all these posts and threads about the A7R.
That's unfortunate if true as it would seem to negate the actual benefits of going AA-less as far as rangefinder wide compatibility (and, apparently not just wides according to Ron's finding with the Leica 50). I guess the data thus far sort of backs this up.
edwardkaraa wrote:
This is what my camera dealer in Bangkok told me, and he has close connections with Sony. Also I remember having read it in one of the interviews with Sony guys but it would be difficult for me to relocate the source with all these posts and threads about the A7R.
I don't have a link but I remember watching a Sony-produced video where they specifically made a point to say that the A7r doesn't have the neutered AA arrangement of the D800E and how they expect the A7r to perform better as a result.
snapsy wrote:
I don't have a link but I remember watching a Sony-produced video where they specifically made a point to say that the A7r doesn't have the neutered AA arrangement of the D800E and how they expect the A7r to perform better as a result.
Any chance it said it didn't have the SAME arrangement (possibly referring to the offset or some nominal change) as the D800E ... yet it could still be utilizing a similar approach.
Then again ... recalling some of the detail in the images produced with native glass (i.e. not rangefinder), does it really matter if it is like the D800E or a true non-AA filter if we aren't shooting rangefinder glass as our primary glass? (Yes, I realize the topic is RF glass)
To what degree have we departed from keeping the main thing, the main thing? Is utilization of RF glass the main objective ... or is IQ the main objective? At the end of the day, RF glass may have its benefit/penalties rooted in film and for some, the RF glass represents the "best" available from a historical perspective ... but is it really the best available for digital, or will it ever be (on a single plane, microlens, bayer array)? Are we being unrealistic in our aspirations to cross-apply a square peg into a round hole with RF on digital?
Is it time to accept that mirrorless is the new RF, and the glass designed to work with it is going to be the best method for achieving the max IQ objective ... if IQ is still "the main thing"? If not, then the aspirations toward size/weight/legacy glass investment/etc. warrant acceptance of the inherent compromises (i.e. software corrections, etc) involved with RF on digital (at least for now). We love to think "out of the box" as alt folks ... but sometimes, just because we can figure out how to put that square peg into the round hole ... doesn't mean it is always in our best interest to do so.
Very well said, Kent. And that is exactly my opinion. To extract the best IQ from these cameras we need to use native lenses, and the Zeiss designed ones seem to be fantastic. I'm sure the MF line Zeiss is currently working on will be even better. The need to use RF glass seems to me beside the point.
Anyhow, the fact is the A7R sucks with RF wides for one reason or another, who cares about the technicalities, it's the end result that counts.
Good points Rusty...though I have to wonder what the situation is going to be even with say a native FE 21mm lens when the FE 35 2.8 shows slight color vignetting in some situations. Unfortunately, I think it's going to be a year or so before we know the answer.
I see the issues with these rangefinder lenses, including fast normals like the Summilux, as some evidence that any FE wides or even faster normals would end up being really huge (negating the size advantage of the bodies). I also don't think it's a coincidence that Sony has recently stated they are not going to be making crazy fast lenses for this system (which, conveniently, allows them to avoid some issue altogether). Maybe we will see 21mm lenses at F4 for instance.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Very well said, Kent. And that is exactly my opinion. To extract the best IQ from these cameras we need to use native lenses, and the Zeiss designed ones seem to be fantastic. I'm sure the MF line Zeiss is currently working on will be even better. The need to use RF glass seems to me beside the point.
Anyhow, the fact is the A7R sucks with RF wides for one reason or another, who cares about the technicalities, it's the end result that counts.
Edward,
Unfortunately like many others I can not wait a year for Zeiss to release MF WA lenses in the 28mm and 21mm focal lengths. I will need at least one of these focal lengths probably within the next 1 1/2- 3 months.
Unfortunately like many others I can not wait a year for Zeiss to release MF WA lenses in the 28mm and 21mm focal lengths. I will need at least one of these focal lengths probably within the next 1 1/2- 3 months.
Rich
Well, Rich, as mentioned earlier, there are many non RF wides that will work perfectly, including Leica R, Zeiss ZF2, Contax ... etc. I think we're waisting our time hoping for RF wides to work. A the end, very few will work, if any.
I think the best option for the UWA is going to remain using those lenses designed for 24x36 from the longer distances (ZF, ZE, TS-E) that we have with SLR mounts to keep the angles of incidence nominal (and/or the craftily applied mustache).
Just because the mirror is gone and we CAN get closer to the film plane ... imo, it isn't doing us any favors in the WA/UWA camp. I think the relationship of the APS-C with the Touit gives us a clue at the size/angles involved for UWA on digital. Extrapolate that to FF and for me, rangefinder on FF cannot equate to max IQ in the UWA side of things.
edwardkaraa wrote:
This is what my camera dealer in Bangkok told me, and he has close connections with Sony. Also I remember having read it in one of the interviews with Sony guys but it would be difficult for me to relocate the source with all these posts and threads about the A7R.
Edward
It is likely the information you were given is based on the number of filters involved being the same, but for the A7R two of the filters are different.
Rather than me attempting to explain, take a look at the following link to Nikon's D800E http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features01.htm
Cheers,
Michael
Giving up vs. being realistic at inherent compromises (software correction, etc.) is not the same thing. The wider you go, the tougher it gets ... choose your poison, we all choose differently @ where we "draw the line".
Matt Grum wrote:
It's not a case of lenses being matched to one particular sensor, as much as it is being matched to one filter stack thickness.
Brian Caldwell mentions, on separate occasions, accounting for the effect of the filter stack in the design of both the Costal Optics 60mm UV/VIS/IR and the Metabones speed booster.
Given the filter stack induces field curvature the effect could be neutralised by designing a lens with the opposite curvature.
The dominant aberration is astigmatism, not field curvature. A first-order correction may be feasible in the lens design, but I don't see how the designer can achieve a high level of correction at all apertures and subject distances.
But if there are lenses that are designed to counterpoise the astigmatism of the filter stack, is it then assumed that the optical properties of the filter stack are standardized? Or can we expect backwards incompatibility between today's digital lenses and tomorrow's sensors?
Good points Kent. I suspect there are some divergent priorities among those participating here. Some are definitely interested in taking advantage of the small sized RF lenses. For me it's a matter of already owning a fairly substantial RF lens collection and not wanting to buy yet another set of lenses for a specific platform (I already have a lot of Canon EF in addition to the RF lenses). A couple reasons I added the Leica M system to my Canon kit was for the size reduction without compromising image quality. The lenses on the M9 definitely perform very well. I'm not sure the more recent RF lenses (mostly from Leica and a couple from Voigtlander) are compromised by digital and are most certainly designed for it. I'm perfectly happy with these on the M9. I can't imagine there being any improvement on film. While Leica's M system is definitely a holdover from the analog era (as are DSLRs), Leica have shown it's not enough to compromise image quality while retaining the physical proportions established in that era.
It will be interesting to see what combination of features and performance Zeiss conjures up for their upcoming line of manual focus lenses for this platform... Will they lean more towards their historical tendency of 'lens relaxation' through somewhat larger optical formulas, or will they aim to take advantage of the lack of AF components and truly shrink lens size (length) down to something akin to RF lenses? (I suspect girth will remain constant with the lens mount size.)
If these new lenses do rival RF lenses for size and offer optical performance along the lines of the two FE lenses we've seen thus far, I suspect it will make RF lenses on this platform much less relevant. There seems to be a big opportunity here if Zeiss can find the magical combination of size and performance to satisfy a large enough segment of this fairly niche market. I also expect we'll see something from Voigtlander.
douglasf13 wrote:
From what understand, it's the microlenses that help/hurt with noise, vignetting and color shift, but the sensor toppings like the IR, AA etc, that influence smearing. The oblong microlenses of the m240 might actually be doing a bit better job than the M9's microlenses, since the camera actually has more colorshift than the M9 (better tuned microlenses equals better reception of light rays but worse color shift at the edges,) but Leica must have changed the whole IR and cover glass setup for the worse. TheSuede had a post about microlens design recently talked about this.
Of course, there also must be differences in the pixel designs of the CCD vs CMOS, so that could be part of it. ...Show more →
IIRC TheSuede slammed Leica/Kodak for their use of a very cheap quality cover glass/IR filter on the M9's sensor and that apparently the M240's sensor has a much higher quality one. This, combined with the redesigned microlenses, may correlate to the reports from early M240 users of better edge sharpness with various wide angle lenses. Therefore my interpretation is the opposite - Leica changed the M240's sensor topping stack for the better.
Compared to what could be possible with closer to symmetric designs.
Toothwalker wrote:
But if there are lenses that are designed to counterpoise the astigmatism of the filter stack, is it then assumed that the optical properties of the filter stack are standardized?
Why not if they are made for one specific mount and camera brand only?
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think we have seen enough so far to know most wides won't work, and those that work won't be as good as on a Leica M body.
What we have yet too see is a real A/B comparison between the cameras with the same lenses. I don't want to buy the a7R just to find out that the smearing is exactly the same as with the a7. I have zero interest in 36 megapixels.
