Scott Stoness wrote: philber wrote:
AmI wrong in wondering whether out-of-focus is the same as smearing? IN my experience, among others with NEX 5, which did smear corners with quite a few lenses, never did the result look like those of a lens with field curvature and misfocused corners. So why am I reading so many comments about FC and mis-focused corners? Am I missing something?
You are reading about smeared corners because:
1) The new e mount results in the sensor being very close to the lens which results in light coming in at a exteme angle (not direct) when using wide rangefinder lens. This has worked with film in range finders because the film is less sensitive to this issue. Leica has solved [hidden] this problem with a software adjustment. But now sony has the problem. It results in smeared edges when using rangefinder (small) lens at <50mm lens.
2) However it has got people pixel peeping at the edges and what they are finding is those lens that they thought were great (because they were not looking in the edges) are not so geat.
So a real problem for low mm rangefinder lens has got people noticing that even longer lens that are thought to be good may not be so good in the edges.
The discussion should be good for lens in the future (attention will cause it to be fixed in newer lens) but not so good (people are not going to buy them as much) for historic lens which have weak edges.
Can you please explain how did Leica solve/hide the smearing problem with software?
it is my understanding that they adjusted to raw in raw to remove the vignetting and refocus the different light colors so they aligned digitally. [If you use the high end Leica, with a newer lens the camera recognizes which lens and adjusts it in camera. Or you can just set it.] However any such adjustment degrades the image on the edges, as compared to perfect optics. This is why I say [hidden] because they did not fix the optical problem, they just did the equivalent of vignetting and ca corrrection in photoshop.
In addition both Leica and Sony did some adjustments to hardware to anticipate bent light. But the problem is that if they do too much of this it causes distortion to lens that don\'t need the correction, so they have to have a compromise. The real question for me is whether the hardware fixes degrade the edges of good lens that have direct light. Because I don\'t want the A7r for lightness but for the dynamic range and resolution on my canon mount zeiss and L lens that don\'t have the ray angle problem because they are longer.
Scott Stoness wrote: philber wrote:
AmI wrong in wondering whether out-of-focus is the same as smearing? IN my experience, among others with NEX 5, which did smear corners with quite a few lenses, never did the result look like those of a lens with field curvature and misfocused corners. So why am I reading so many comments about FC and mis-focused corners? Am I missing something?
You are reading about smeared corners because:
1) The new e mount results in the sensor being very close to the lens which results in light coming in at a exteme angle (not direct) when using wide rangefinder lens. This has worked with film in range finders because the film is less sensitive to this issue. Leica has solved [hidden] this problem with a software adjustment. But now sony has the problem. It results in smeared edges when using rangefinder (small) lens at <50mm lens.
2) However it has got people pixel peeping at the edges and what they are finding is those lens that they thought were great (because they were not looking in the edges) are not so geat.
So a real problem for low mm rangefinder lens has got people noticing that even longer lens that are thought to be good may not be so good in the edges.
The discussion should be good for lens in the future (attention will cause it to be fixed in newer lens) but not so good (people are not going to buy them as much) for historic lens which have weak edges.
Can you please explain how did Leica solve/hide the smearing problem with software?
it is my understanding that they adjusted to raw in raw to remove the vignetting and refocus the different light colors so they aligned digitally. [If you use the high end Leica, with a newer lens the camera recognizes which lens and adjusts it in camera. Or you can just set it.] However this degrades the image on the edges. This is why I say [hidden] because they did not fix the optical problem, they just did the equivalent of vignetting and ca corrrection in photoshop.
In addition both Leica and Sony did some adjustments to hardware to anticipate bent light. But the problem is that if they do too much of this it causes distortion to lens that don\'t need the correction, so they have to have a compromise. The real question for me is whether the hardware fixes degrade the edges of good lens that have direct light. Because I don\'t want the A7r for lightness but for the dynamic range and resolution on my canon mount zeiss and L lens that don\'t have the ray angle problem because they are longer.
Nov 20, 2013 at 02:14 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #11947458 « Sony A7 - first impressions and some tests »
