The optical projection of the lens will always be the same, whether you put it on an APS-C or FF ... all the APS-C has done is crop away the bad stuff. Thus, the whole APS-C equivalency comparison @ fair is a moot point at whether or not the A7R with it\'s offset sensor will address the color shift that occurs from the additional angles of refraction imparted by the microlens redirecting the light onto an RGB bayer array.
The theoretical hope that an offset sensor would result in a lesser amount or refraction required from the microlens to direct the light onto the sensor appears to have little impact (from the magenta sides image and from the comments regarding by others).
The optical projection is designed to have the light converge to align wavelengths at a given point. Having those projections converge (from differing angles) to a point that is then subsequently being refracted is always going to have a detrimental effect on the aligment/divergence. I think that the preliminary results of that magenta shot coupled with the comments by others early experience with a given lens likely tells the story that the offset sensor is no \"magic beans\" to address the microlens refraction.
While we can clamor over this lens vs. that lens and discount the negative results from a given lens in hope that it will work better for a different lens to our liking, it may be a bit folly.
Light is an energy, a force that is being redirected onto our sensor/film. As such it is a vector quantity. The vignetting that we see from those steep angles is a product of the trigonometry from the projected image. As long as the microlens exists in the same film plane, the angles from the projected image to the microlens will remain the same for a given distance from the optical axis.
On film, will don\'t have the bayer array to contend with. While the \"offset sensor\" sent hope that it might have some ability to contend with the color shift imparted by the microlens refracting the converged light, these early images and comments at the A7R make me think that as long as we are using a bayer array in the same film plane, we\'ll get the same results. The subsequent diffraction of an otherwise properly converged light wavelengths only serves to separate those wavelengths from proper alignment. As that angle of refraction increases (corresponding to the steeper angles of incidence), the degree of separation likewise increases.
As such, I\'m inclined to think that unless a Foveon approach (or Canon\'s \"tiered Foveon\") is utilized where there is no subsequent refraction to re-separate the properly converged light ... the color shifts will always occur for the steep angles in conjunction with a micro-lens Bayer array. Unless the film plane itself is modified, so that the amount of refraction imparted by the microlens remains below the (visible) threshold for producing that separation, it is physically destined to remain a byproduct of the micro-lens refraction imparted onto the properly converged light.
Let the bashing begin ... but I\'m no longer holding my breath that the A7R\'s offset sensor is going be the \"magic beans\" that I was very much hoping. Sigma needs to bring out a FF mirrorless Foveon, or Canon needs to finish their \"tiered Foveon\".
Imo Bayer array and micro-lens refraction is not the answer for UWA steep angle color shifts. The only way that it could be is if a lens was designed to strike the microlens with a non-convergent light, that would subsequently be refracted by the micro-lens to proper convergence. This of course would be most suitable to a fixed mount lens ... like the RX1. As such, that would still mitigate the use of rangefinder glass. UWA, rangefinder glass on Bayer micro-lens for color isn\'t something I\'d hold my breath any longer.
The optical projection of the lens will always be the same, whether you put it on an APS-C or FF ... all the APS-C has done is crop away the bad stuff. Thus, the whole APS-C equivalency comparison @ fair is a moot point at whether or not the A7R with it\'s offset sensor will address the color shift that occurs from the additional angles of refraction imparted by the microlens redirecting the light onto an RGB bayer array.
The theoretical hope that an offset sensor would result in a lesser amount or refraction required from the microlens to direct the light onto the sensor appears to have little impact (from the magenta sides image and from the comments regarding by others).
The optical projection is designed to have the light converge to align wavelengths at a given point. Having those projections converge (from differing angles) to a point that is then subsequently being refracted is always going to have a detrimental effect on the aligment/divergence. I think that the preliminary results of that magenta shot coupled with the comments by others early experience with a given lens likely tells the story that the offset sensor is no \"magic beans\" to address the microlens refraction.
While we can clamor over this lens vs. that lens and discount the negative results from a given lens in hope that it will work better for a different lens to our liking may be a bit folly.
Light is an energy, a force that is being redirected onto our sensor/film. As such it is a vector quantity. The vignetting that we see from those steep angles is a product of the trigonometry from the projected image. As long as the microlens exists in the same film plane, the angles from the projected image to the microlens will remain the same for a given distance from the optical axis.
On film, will don\'t have the bayer array to contend with. While the \"offset sensor\" sent hope that it might have some ability to contend with the color shift imparted by the microlens refracting the converged light, these early images and comments at the A7R make me think that as long as we are using a bayer array in the same film plane, we\'ll get the same results. The subsequent diffraction of an otherwise properly converged light wavelengths only serves to separate those wavelengths from proper alignment. As that angle of refraction increases (corresponding to the steeper angles of incidence), the degree of separation likewise increases.
As such, I\'m inclined to think that unless a Foveon approach (or Canon\'s \"tiered Foveon\") is utilized where there is no subsequent refraction to re-separate the properly converged light ... the color shifts will always occur for the steep angles in conjunction with a micro-lens Bayer array. Unless the film plane itself is modified, so that the amount of refraction imparted by the microlens remains below the (visible) threshold for producing that separation, it is physically destined to remain a byproduct of the micro-lens refraction imparted onto the properly converged light.
Let the bashing begin ... but I\'m no longer holding my breath that the A7R\'s offset sensor is going be the \"magic beans\" that I was very much hoping. Sigma needs to bring out a FF mirrorless Foveon, or Canon needs to finish their \"tiered Foveon\".
Imo Bayer array and micro-lens refraction is not the answer for UWA steep angle color shifts. The only way that it could be is if a lens was designed to strike the microlens with a non-convergent light, that would subsequently be refracted by the micro-lens to proper convergence. This of course would be most suitable to a fixed mount lens ... like the RX1. As such, that would still mitigate the use of rangefinder glass. UWA, rangefinder glass on Bayer micro-lens for color isn\'t something I\'d hold my breath any longer.
Oct 19, 2013 at 08:30 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11873938 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
