Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
I\'ve disassembled an A7 and removed the filter stack for better performance with M lenses. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explains why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value to my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Here\'s a pic of the A7 sensor stack,
There are some more pictures of the A7 teardown and stack removal here,
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
I\'ve disassembled an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Here\'s a pic of the A7 sensor stack,
There are some more pictures of the A7 teardown here,
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
I\'ve disassembled an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
Re: The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
So far as I am aware, I\'m the first to disassemble an A7. The A7 filter stack is 1.8mm total (shaker+hot mirror+IR absorption+second birefringent layer) measured with an outside micrometer.
This doesn\'t include the first-birefringent layer epoxied to the ceramic carrier which I didn\'t remove.
Generally the birefringent layers are thicknessed according to the pixel size - eg. smaller pixel wells, need thinner glass due to the way the low pass filter works.
This would explain why the A7r disassembled by Roger measured a slightly different value than my A7.
Incidentally, I got an M-mount adapter re-machined to get infinity focus back, and am using M lenses fairly successfully winning back a lot of corner performance.
