ken.vs.ryu wrote:
too small for my taste. take the guts and put it inside a CLE.
that smallness is what makes me most excited about it. everybody wants something different and it's good to finally see some variation between different venders.
sebboh wrote:
thanks, i guess that is to be expected from a lens that is only a $100 add on. oh well, we'll have to see how these cameras handle wider m-mount lenses without microlenses and what zeiss has to offer.
Looks almost like a camera-phone photo with all that distortion and fringing. Not a good advertisement.
man I can't wait to see some real samples with some ZM glass adapted to one of these babies. Just out of curiousity (since I don't have any real experience with RFs), my understanding is the M9 has microlenses whose angle varies as you approach the edge of the sensor (is this to comepsate for the incidence angle that must be steep due to the short flange. Does this sony sensor have the same thing or does it not need it since its 1.5x? Im assuming that if sony makes an FF NEX in the future they'd have to do a similar arrangement with the microlenses? ... what would be the consequence of not having these variable microlenses towards the edges? Would there be harsher light drop off or would you get blurring towards the edges of the frame? Sorry for the ignorant questions but these cams have got me curious about the implications of a short flange in the digital era
That is exactly why I don't expect to see a Fullframe NEX anytime soon. That special sensor costs Leica a lot of money. I, too, am curious if the APS-C sensor "crops" off enough of the frame to avoid issues.
now why is it a problem with digital sensors and not film... is it b/c bayer type sensors have to have a microlens over each array of 4 color pixels or is it something else? If that's the case, would a digital sensor other than a bayer CMOS work better for this application?
yea...I know it sucks in the corners but is that b/c of crappy lenses (which is easily remedied by adapting ZM) or is it b/c even with a 1.5x sensor, as you get closer to the edge you start to see distortions in the absence of a custom micro lens arrangement due to the short flange distance... hopefully its the lens cuz otherwise the corners will suck no matter what you put on it.
morpheus2891 wrote:
now why is it a problem with digital sensors and not film... is it b/c bayer type sensors have to have a microlens over each array of 4 color pixels or is it something else? If that's the case, would a digital sensor other than a bayer CMOS work better for this application?
not sure exactly why (i'm sure the bayer filters aren't helpful), but digital sensors are much more sensitive to angle of light than film. even with the 2x crop factor of µ4/3 some m-mount lenses show light fall off and smearing at the edges. this seems to be a problem only for lenses wider than 35mm (on µ4/3) and is apparently more of a problem for faster lenses and lenses with a smaller distance between the sensor and the rear element. from what i have heard the voigtlander 12mm still works pretty well though, so there seems to be a fair amount of variation depending on lens design. it'll be interesting to see how different lenses perform on nex.
morpheus2891 wrote:
yea...I know it sucks in the corners but is that b/c of crappy lenses (which is easily remedied by adapting ZM) or is it b/c even with a 1.5x sensor, as you get closer to the edge you start to see distortions in the absence of a custom micro lens arrangement due to the short flange distance... hopefully its the lens cuz otherwise the corners will suck no matter what you put on it.
that is the case
if it doesnt have the microlenses to control the edges/corners
its screwed
thanks... so I guess not all hope is lost in a way for FF in EV cameras, but it does require that you either do a custom micro lens arrangement like Leica and allow people to use previous M-mount glass but charge a ton for the sensor, or start designing a new line of "telecentric" lenses that are optimized for the shorter flange... that way you loose the previous M-mount lenses (or get crappy performance in corners) but you get cheaper cameras and perhaps a cheaper/easier path for further sensor development (since you have don't have to deal with an expensive custom micro lens arrangement)... ugh
morpheus2891 wrote:
yea...I know it sucks in the corners but is that b/c of crappy lenses (which is easily remedied by adapting ZM) or is it b/c even with a 1.5x sensor, as you get closer to the edge you start to see distortions in the absence of a custom micro lens arrangement due to the short flange distance... hopefully its the lens cuz otherwise the corners will suck no matter what you put on it.
Well... the 18-55 looks fine for me in the corners. The 16mm is indeed really soft, but the zoom at 18mm looks sharp enough, doesn't it?
Rob Riley wrote:
that is the case
if it doesnt have the microlenses to control the edges/corners
its screwed
It certainly depends on the image circle of the lens. The NEX's E-mount is nearly the same diameter as the Alpha mount, so it looks like Sony may have planned for the lenses to be a bit oversized. The 16mm doesn't look all that great, but things should get better as the focal lengths increase.
angle of incidence has nothing to do with flange distance and everything to do with apparent exit pupil distance. if the lens itself has the optics in it to bring the light nearer perpendicular to the surface (therefore moving the apparent exit pupil away from the sensor), then the offset microlenses aren't needed. as corner shading isn't a huge issue on current crop SLRs then lens designs wouldn't be anything outside of the normal for anyone with experience building current SLR lenses. the sony 18-55 lens for this doesn't appear to be significantly smaller than canon's 18-55 from the side by side on imaging-resource.
this wasn't a problem with the film days because with film the angle of incidence didn't matter very much. the chemistry absorbed the light. with sensors the light needs to come in from a certain angle otherwise the light gets wasted in the silicon substrate rather than generating electrons in the well.
Looking at the Image Resouces sample images, the 16 pancake lens is a 5 element POS, more of a cowpie. The 16 doesn't even look sharp in the center.
The 18-55 lens at 28 looks decent and gets better at 55. The sharpest images were the portrait ones taken at 70mm which I assume is with the much larger 18-200mm lens with the 17 elements.
This is the image I am talking about: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/FULLRES/NEX5OUTBAP0.HTM
The glass is key and this shows why Leica M glass is so frickin expensive. ZM or Leica glass will be needed to get good IQ unless you like having a huge lens sticking out the front which to me defeats the whole purpose of this system.
eheh, I'm considering doing the same thing
I'm wondering if the wider M lenses can fit though.. aren't the widest Zeiss and voigtlander lenses going too deep in he camera?
That's the great thing about the NEX's registration distance. It allows a perfect fit via adapter. Granted, the wider lenses may not perform too great at the edges. I'm just hoping an M mount 35mm lens will perform okay, since that'll be a "standard" lens on APS-C.
The 16 doesn't even look sharp in the center. 
