Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses at best, closer to Zeiss current DSLR sizes at worst (it is still the same size image circle needed). How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those lenses (SLR) with mirrors is already challenging to contend with the microlens refraction, how much more challenging will it be by moving in even closer?
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are (with or without the mirror). The absence of the mirror is a bonus for size/weight and negates the need for MLU (that\'s always nice), but it doesn\'t change the demands on the projected image relative to the microlens imposed limitations.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses at best, closer to Zeiss current DSLR sizes at worst (it is still the same size image circle needed). How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those lenses (SLR) with mirrors is already challenging to contend with the microlens refraction, how much more challenging will it be by moving in even closer?
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are (with or without the mirror). The absence of the mirror is a bonus for size/weight and negates the need for MLU (that\'s always nice), but it doesn\'t change the demands on the projected image relative to the microlens.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those lenses (SLR) with mirrors is already challenging to contend with the microlens refraction, how much more challenging will it be by moving in even closer?
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are (with or without the mirror). The absence of the mirror is a bonus for size/weight and negates the need for MLU (that\'s always nice), but it doesn\'t change the demands on the projected image relative to the microlens.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those lenses (SLR) with mirrors is already challenging to contend with the microlens refraction, how much more challenging will it be by moving in even closer?
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are (with or without the mirror).
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those lenses (SLR) with mirrors is already challenging to contend with the microlens refraction, how much more challenging will it be by moving in even closer?
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of converging light to cover a 24mm x 36mm area (for a given fov) is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move to the film plane, the steeper or less steep the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig for vector forces can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of covering a 24mm x 36mm area is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move, the steeper or less so the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Zeiss will likely get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious. The physics of covering a 24mm x 36mm area is the exact same with or without a mirror. The closer vs. farther you move, the steeper or less so the angles of incidence become. It isn\'t rocket science ... it\'s trig.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror. Zeiss will get it as right as it can be done ... the physics of the trig can\'t be violated, only slightly bent (mustache distortion) before it becomes obvious.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. Their results speak for themselves in the results/trade-offs as historically seen in DSLR FF.
Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. They results speak for themselves in the DSLR FF. Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. They results speak for themselves in the DSLR FF. Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles ... with or without a mirror.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. They results speak for themselves in the DSLR FF. Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light. As long as the microlens is in the path, the uber-steep angles will not afford proper retention of the converged light. Employing a mustache distortion design affords a change in the angles of incidence coming from the more distant portions of the projected image circle. Doing so from farther rather than closer aids also in the reduction of those angles.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at mustache distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear for WA/UWA\'s. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved. They results speak for themselves in the DSLR FF. Meanwhile, removing the mirror still retains the same optical projection challenges, it just allows them to come in a little closer IF ... IF that helps achieve the angles needed for optimal imaging. If the distance from those with mirrors is challenged, moving in closer is only going to be even more challenging.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
The mirror itself is not the limiting factor as people want to associate it to be. The limiting factor is the angle of incidence that the microlens can receive and still retain the proper convergence of light, both for smearing and for color. I find it interesting that it was mentioned that Leica has their sensor set deeper in the box. I don\'t know if this is true or not (the Leica sensor placement distance) ... but, if it is then it would certainly contribute to better results with rangefinder glass by affording different angles of incidence to the microlens.
In short, the mirror isn\'t the problem, the angle to the microlens and its subsequent refraction of the converged light rays is. Rangefinder glass (and legacy SLR glass) was never designed to contend with this subsequent refraction of light.
Tariq Gibran wrote: The future for smallish, manual focus lenses also looks bright now that Zeiss has said they will be releasing such lenses for the FF E-Mount.
And they likely will be around the same size as the Oly\'s or other smallish FF WA/UWA lenses. How much of the typical Zeiss mustache distortion design will they introduce is yet to be seen, but they\'ll essentially have their choice at distortion vs. vignette/shift/smear. My money is that they\'ll go with their mustache distortion approach that they do better than anyone one else as the methodology to contend with the trigonometry involved.
You simply are not going to get a free pass on the physics of the trig no matter how thin you make the camera. The area of coverage for the image circle remains the same size @ FF, and the distance from the film plane is critical to the angle of incidence to the micro-lens. The only way to get the same coverage and a less steep angle is to be farther from the film plane ... which puts you closer to the distance that SLR lenses are with or without the mirror.
While rangefinder glass has enjoyed the benefit of being closer, the penalties for the steep angles are readily noticeable in vignetting. In film, that is the primary penalty and has been readily accepted by rangefinder users as par for the course. In digital, however the introduction of the microlens into the optical path creates an additional refraction of the light light path and it is only able contend with a nominal amount of angle of incidence before the angle of refraction has unwanted negative effects that impede the retention of the properly converged light as designed by the lens to achieve.
Oct 22, 2013 at 08:04 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11880501 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
