naturephoto1
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all! | |
uhoh7 wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thus one could just as easily argue that Sony, starting from a clean slate, took the best option for overall IQ with also a thought towards limiting consumer frustration over sensor issues as compared to the route Leica was forced to take. Arguing that Sony made a mistake and used bad judgement going with a thicker stack versus a thin stack with it\'s own IQ and reliability issues doesn\'t really hold much water imo.
Hi Tariq
Alway enjoy your posts, and hope we are friendly, despite some fun skirmishes over time 
Re: the Clean slate. This one doesn\'t hold water for me, since there were only two lenses to start with, and Sony went about widely touting the use of ALT glass to make up for it. Worse, many of their new FE lenses are quite large, e.g. the 70200 zoom and the 1635. The thick stack is driving what had the potential to be a great compact system, right into DSLR territory.
You infer that a good thin stack is impossible because the M9 has some issues etc Really, If at first we don\'t succeed, forget it, sell all your great glass, and start over with a big fat cover that needs special lenses, which BTW, are horrible to MF?
The entire success of the whole Nex series, the E-Mount \"brand\", comes from it\'s wide adaptability. Throwing that out the window strikes me as utterly oblivious behavior. 
mdemeyer wrote:
I understand from KolariVision that the IR characteristics of the new filter are (essentially) the same as the stock filters. Regarding humidity resistance, Leica used S8612 in the M9, etc. which is more prone to humidity damage (according to the Schott technical information, although they are not as transparent on the subject as one might wish) than the BG39 used here.
It\'s a tricky balance - IR rejection, matching the visible band transmission curve to minimize white balance changes, availability of glass in small quantities in the needed thickness, adjusting sensor position to maintain proper optical path length (focus), etc. Having been involved in the project since last fall (I\'m the Michael mentioned on the KolariVision web site. I initiated the project - although I have no commercial interest in the project or KolariVision) I have seen personally how difficult it is to come up with a modification like this that actually works and can be implemented at a reasonable cost IMHO for what it delivers.
Perfect? I\'m sure not. Could it be done better by a manufacturer in volume? Almost certainly. But so far none but Leica seem to have taken on the challenge and I can\'t justify putting that much into a rapidly depreciating digital asset. I love my RF and other glass acquired over the years and was frustrated by years of people talking about the problem and not solving it. I\'m delighted that Ilija at KolariVision was willing to take it on and develop something that, for many of us, will breath life into the glass we treasure for whatever reason. For those who think it\'s an imperfect or un-needed solution, that\'s fine. We each have our priorities and values and can choose to participate or not.
At least we have another option now. I, for one, am happy to have that choice and to share it with others of like mind.
Michael
Great post Michael. I could kiss you!!! For many of us you may have saved the whole system.
Hi Charlie,
You can not argue with Sony that the M RF didn\'t work on the Sony A7 series cameras. Sony never stated that the WA RF M lenses worked well into the corners, but they did work on the cameras and to this date, they are the only FF camera besides Leica on which these lenses can be used and mounted. It was hopeful thinking on the part of all those with WA RF M lenses or those that wanted to use these lenses on the cameras that they would work well.
Rich
|
