jjlphoto wrote:
The big disadvantage of that system is that it is a 6x6 box, meaning the big 6x6 mirror. That makes for a deeper mirror box as compared to the Hassy. A deeper mirror box will severly complicate making wide angle lenses for that camera. The Contax 645 had a 35mm lens, and now Harry has a 28mm lens announced, but designing such a wide (that is affordable) for a 6x6 with its much longer flange to film distance will take nothing short of a miracle.
Yes, you have a point but it's easy enough to use the digital back on a view camera and use the Schneider 24mm Apo-Digitar. Perhaps not as convenient but you have movements and an even wider angle than Hasselblad. Certainly not a deal-breaker. There is also a Digitar 28mm.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Beni we may get better on the DSLR side but even that is slowing a little. But the MF side it really is not changing as fast , they only thing they are doing now is higher ISO and faster .
Agreed. No-one really wants to put up with 100 MP files when there's so little need for them. High ISO noise performance is the highest priority, imho. Faster capture rates would be nice too.
jjlphoto wrote:
From what I have read about the large format digital designed lenses, is that they are not recommended for use with film.
It's not clear why that would be the case. What is it about this lens/film combination that makes them not recommend it? What would the problem be? I thought that digital was the more demanding media.
jjlphoto wrote:
1- Regarding CA, film lenses had light rays falling on a surface that had physical depth due to the colored layers, hence the coatings and diffractions were optimized for the rays to penetrate those depths differently. With a sensor totally flat, digital lenses are optimized to bring all RGB rays onto one surface.
I find it hard to beleive that they can design and can control the lens performance to the extent that each 3 colors focus to a different distance that are mere microns apart. And what about colors other than red, green or blue? It seems that for most lenses they were lucky if they could get all the colors to focus on the same plane, much less control it so each color focuses precisely in a different plane.
jjlphoto wrote:
2- Regarding precision- film lenses were somewhat compromised to allow for depth of focus that corresponded to the somewhat convoluted nature of film itself, and the sagging and buckling it would normally have. Digital lenses have a shallower depth of focus (and hence better resolving characteristics) because the sensor is now perfectly flat.
Further to point number 1, these differences swamp the differences in the optimum focus point between the layers. I also don't understand how they can change the "depth of focus". There is no "depth" to the focus plane. If there is a compromise, what is the nature of that compromise and how is it achieved?
jjlphoto wrote:
Actually, the colors already fall in different depths just due to the nature of the differences in their relative wavelengths.
But they don't control it (and certainly not so precisely), and do these differences in focus from their wavelength actually match the differences in the layer depth in film? I would be very surprised if they just happened to match
jjlphoto wrote:
Depth of Focus is an actual term that is measurable.
This is analogous to "depth of field" -- there is necessarily a subjective term in the calculation/measurement like the "circle of confusion" to give you a depth. The focal plane is 2 dimensional and without depth. And once again, how do they design for it?
jjlphoto wrote:
Depth of field is in front of the lens, depth of focus is behind the lens. Again, it is a standard term, not something I made up.
I realize that, and didn't suggest that you made it up. All I suggested is that "depth of focus" behind the lens is analogous to "depth of field" in front of the lens, and that any measurement (or calculation) of it necessarily depends on a subjective factor as the plane of focus (in front of or behind the lens) has no actual depth.
