Samuli Vahonen wrote:
If there would be optimal hood, most likely I would leave it home, as nature photographer I could not fit 4 optimal hoods in top of everything else into my bag, my bag might not even fit one.
Of course, but using always official or 3rd party hood would propably eliminate issues in many cases. If not, use any additional trick that is most suitable. Like some easily movable attachment on top of the hood.
Also I doubt there is much difference in reflectivity between \"real optical flock\" material vs. material I used on testing masking vs. flocking. In real world test flocking (on \"round hole\" adapters, not talking about Metabones III, as I have zero issues with it I have done nothing with it) provided minimal help, but masking eliminated all issues almost completely, maybe reason why Sony has masked all their own lenses.
I don\'t know, but the \"real\" material should absorb 99% of light from any angle while being not as thick. I used this for flocking: http://www.fpi-protostar.com/flock.htm
While reading about your own test case and images you provided, it looked like that your flocking material gave almost the same result as masking. So large part of light was reflected from adapter tube anyway, atleast in that case? I think with some adapters the problem might be the smaller tube that connects to the camera body. Some of the cheaper adapters even have very reflective black paint in their interior. Might cause internal reflections when light hits an adapter barrel at high angle. But of course well designed mask that is both thin and made of non-reflecting material would be even more efficient. Just my 2 cents...
With the Metabones mk III the problem is that the mask edges actually create additional reflections because of the design of the mask. TS-E lenses (like my 17/4L and 24/3.5L II) have very large imaging circle so I quess the change of hitting inner surfaces of an adapter is also higher.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
If there would be optimal hood, most likely I would leave it home, as nature photographer I could not fit 4 optimal hoods in top of everything else into my bag, my bag might not even fit one.
Of course, but using always official or 3rd party hood would propably eliminate issues in many cases. If not, use any additional trick that is most suitable. Like some easily movable attachment on top of the hood.
Also I doubt there is much difference in reflectivity between \"real optical flock\" material vs. material I used on testing masking vs. flocking. In real world test flocking (on \"round hole\" adapters, not talking about Metabones III, as I have zero issues with it I have done nothing with it) provided minimal help, but masking eliminated all issues almost completely, maybe reason why Sony has masked all their own lenses.
I don\'t know, but the \"real\" material should absorb 99% of light from any angle while being not as thick. I used this for flocking: http://www.fpi-protostar.com/flock.htm
While reading about your own test case and images you provided, it looked like that your flocking material gave almost the same result as masking. So large part of light was reflected from adapter tube anyway, atleast in that case? I think with some adapters the problem might be the smaller tube that connects to the camera body. Some of the cheaper adapters even have very reflective black paint in their interior. Might cause internal reflections when light comes at specific angle. But of course well designed mask that is both thin and made of non-reflecting material would be even more efficient. Just my 2 cents...
May 15, 2014 at 01:55 AM
Previous versions of paah75's message #12348013 « Sony FE Images Thread »
