p.37 #2 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Hi David
Why should the kollari mod degrade the edge quality of the 17tse? There is less for the lightwaves to go through, unless i am totally misunderstanding the concept.
I thought that by reducing the layer sandwich depth, wa would be better off?
p.37 #3 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
karlfoto wrote:
Hi David
Why should the kollari mod degrade the edge quality of the 17tse? There is less for the lightwaves to go through, unless i am totally misunderstanding the concept.
I thought that by reducing the layer sandwich depth, wa would be better off?
The key is not the optical thickness of the filter, but the difference between the filter in the camera in use and the filter that the lens was designed for. That's why we see across the board improvements with lenses designed for film (lens optimised for filter thickness zero) when we make the stack thinner.
The assumption (and it is only an assumption) is that the 17 TSE, being a 'modern' design, was optimised for some filter thickness, but we don't know what it was. So it's hard to know whether things will improve or not. We do know, however, that the exit pupil distance is large (80+ mm if I remember right) so the expected effect - positive or negative - should be small.
Also remember there is a discussion in this thread about the importance of proper adapter thickness for lenses with floating elements (I believe the 17 is one of those) which probably has a larger effect on quality with this lens than the modification from what has been said here. Don't get the two topics confused.
p.37 #5 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
karlfoto wrote:
Hi David
Why should the kollari mod degrade the edge quality of the 17tse? There is less for the lightwaves to go through, unless i am totally misunderstanding the concept.
I thought that by reducing the layer sandwich depth, wa would be better off?
Karl,
I would say we need to wait for more testing to get any conclusive result. There is no concrete evidence about any of these degradation. I have seen noticeable improvement on all of my lenses, albeit they were all designed for film. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing the TSE 17 results from beetlephoto.
p.37 #7 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
martindesu wrote:
Have adverse effects been reported for the FE lenses? (namely, 35/2,8 and 55/1,8)
I tried the FE 55 with A7r Mod without issues. I also tested in the Sony store the FE 16-35, and this looked very good too. Obviously more testing does need to be done, but there does not seem to be any downside so far
p.37 #9 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
charles.K wrote:
I tried the FE 55 with A7r Mod without issues. I also tested in the Sony store the FE 16-35, and this looked very good too. Obviously more testing does need to be done, but there does not seem to be any downside so far
I'm still a bit worried about the accuracy of colors with the new (corrosion-free) stack, based on the few shots I have seen here with the new stack. It seems the auto-WB is off, which suggests (to me at least! ) that the new stack has a color cast. Not sure if that will eventually prove to be true, but if that is the case, it might not work best with the Bayer filter, some colors might appear stronger/weaker (as with a colored filter on a lens)
Again, pure speculation from me at this point in time. My camera should get surgery in the next hours/days
p.37 #10 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
beetlephoto wrote:
I'm still a bit worried about the accuracy of colors with the new (corrosion-free) stack, based on the few shots I have seen here with the new stack. It seems the auto-WB is off, which suggests (to me at least! ) that the new stack has a color cast. Not sure if that will eventually prove to be true, but if that is the case, it might not work best with the Bayer filter, some colors might appear stronger/weaker (as with a colored filter on a lens)
Again, pure speculation from me at this point in time. My camera should get surgery in the next hours/days ...Show more →
Actually, color so far seems to match the stock A7s. I have done quite a few custom WB comparisons and the color were the same in tonality, gradation and intensity; my monitor is calibrated but not one of those high gamut NEC or Enzo ones. There was a photographer on Dyxum offering to take a look at the raws using RawDigger but I have to take a comparison using his own way. He is a specialized full spectrum and IR photographer. Ilija will do a few comparisons to find out what is going on as well. For the moment, I'm more ecstatic about what I can do with my RF lenses. The ZM 15 can take a beautiful astro shot now at WO; and for the first time I see that the lens has no coma whatsoever at WO. That alone is worth the price.
p.37 #11 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
hiepphotog wrote:
Actually, color so far seems to match the stock A7s. I have done quite a few custom WB comparisons and the color were the same in tonality, gradation and intensity; my monitor is calibrated but not one of those high gamut NEC or Enzo ones. There was a photographer on Dyxum offering to take a look at the raws using RawDigger but I have to take a comparison using his own way. He is a specialized full spectrum and IR photographer. Ilija will do a few comparisons to find out what is going on as well. For the moment, I'm more ecstatic about what I can do with my RF lenses. The ZM 15 can take a beautiful astro shot now at WO; and for the first time I see that the lens has no coma whatsoever at WO. That alone is worth the price....Show more →
Interesting and reassuring if only the auto WB is affected. I guess a quick and easy way to compare would be to look at the R, G, B layers for both files (before, after conversion), and to see if they overlap once WB has been adjusted.
Do we know the reference of the new glass? Previous is Schott BG39 but I don't think I read the reference of the new one. Is it the same glass as the M240? I read thickness is the same (0.8mm).
p.37 #12 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Wow, I just got the Elmar 24 ASPH. It has zero field curvature. The corners are tack-sharp WO (albeit only 3.8) with no smearing whatsoever. I ran out and did my usual infinity test. The results is better than what Lloyd was getting on his A7R.mod. On Lloyd's A7R.mod, his 24 has LCA in the corners. None is on mine. Jack, I'm curious about your SEM 21 WO performance on your A7R.mod. I'm going to replicate some of Lloyd's shot on M240 to compare the results, but right now very optimistic.
p.37 #13 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Congratulations Hiep! Looks that the 24 Elmar is an excellent lens
Another shot this morning as I am revisiting the 35 Lux FLE with the A7r M. With the infinity calibrated with the VM-E, the 35 Lux FLE is an excellent option now. At f/5.6 and 8 the lens is very sharp in the corners and no issues so far. I now use the Adobe FF for all my wide lenses, as it cleans up any slight casting wonderfully. I have an older Capture Pro White card, that I set the exposure comp at +2, and have a wide open shot and one at f/8 at infinity.
I would love the ZM 35/1.4, but having the 35 Lux FLE in my kit, I am reluctant to sell it now. I have also sold my 24 Lux Asph yesterday, as it was a lens that I didn't use often enough. Having the WATE is all I need for now, as it can be used on all the A7 bodies.
The first is at f/8 and the second is at f/1.4. Of course you would not normally use f/1.4 for mid day landscapes, but it is a great choice if you wish to use it. Using Adobe FF at f/1.4 is a must, as there is strong cast. At f/1.4 the focus point is the center trees mid distance.
p.37 #15 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
I took the CV15/4.5 v1 out with me today. The corners are acceptable (though I didn't shoot any test pics with the corners at infinity), but the color cast is still very strong.
These shots use the Adobe FF plugin and then also a color profile ("Faithful") that helps reduce the effects further. There is still some pinkness visible (partly because my profile isn't that great).
p.37 #17 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
mdemeyer wrote:
Checked and it turns out my 1970's Canon TS 35mm f2.8 also has a floating element, so I should shim the Metabones adapter and see how much it improves. I had posted a few shots with it on the A7M Flickr group (links below, y'all join!) that I can redo after shimming it.
I thought it was decent before, but perhaps it will surprise me in a good way.
Michael
I'm not sure that it does have floating elements, I haven't found a source from canon that says it does.
I've been trying to find a pdf of the Canon FD Lens Work book.
p.37 #19 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
LightShow wrote:
I'm not sure that it does have floating elements. . .
The FD TS 35/2.8 is a simple, non floating element design. Instead of shimming an adapter, infinity adjust the lens. I believe the front ID ring is glued on, on that lens so it has to be pulled off to revel conventional infinity screws.
I'm joining the club as I have a a7 in transit to Kolarivision. I am really looking forward to the results of this mod.
p.37 #20 · A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
pinholecam wrote:
Thanks for the samples.
I am almost ready to send my A7 for the mod.
Does anyone have samples of A7 nodded with either the canon ltm 35mm f1.8 or CV35 f1.4?
These are my most problematic lenses for off center performance.
So if they work, I am sending straight away
pinholecam, just send it in! . This mod works even with the most problematic ones like the Biogon G 21 and C-Biogon 21/4.5, your 35s should be child plays . The problematic ones in the CV line-up are the tiny, wider Skopar.
