interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless

In article ,
RichA wrote:


I wouldn't say that. Most Sony FF users do buy into the large,
professional
lens lines so they can get reasonable performance, rather than suffering
with
Sony's lower-tier stuff.

which means it's the *lens* that makes it big.

f/2.8 constant aperture pro lenses are bigger than f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with it, because it's true. Not only is the package
almost as large as a DSLR, it's less easy to handle properly because of the
smaller, flatter camera shape.

no.

In article , Eric Stevens
says...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:13:14 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
A lens which will work closer to the sensor works to the disadvantage
of the sensor.


Why?

Angle of attack to the sensor.

And there is no suitable lens design?

Besides the angle should only be an issue with sensor using microlenses,
not with back-illuminated sensors.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:01:34 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rorless-fatal-
mista
ke/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

But not when fitted with a lens.

yes when fitted with a lens.

the author of that article intentionally chose lenses that make the
sony look worse than it normally would.

That may be true but nobody has stated that in this thread before you.

so what?

You are trying to refute what I said about the author's comment on the
basis of what he did not, but could have said.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 04:37:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

A lens which will work closer to the sensor works to the disadvantage
of the sensor.


Why?

Angle of attack to the sensor.

myth

So designing a lens so that it could be put in contact with the sensor
would work?

No?

How about 2mm away? After all, it is well known that sensels receive
light with equal facility from all directions in a three dimensional
space.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:38:54 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:13:14 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
A lens which will work closer to the sensor works to the disadvantage
of the sensor.


Why?

Angle of attack to the sensor.

And there is no suitable lens design?

Besides the angle should only be an issue with sensor using microlenses,
not with back-illuminated sensors.

To a point but even then the sensels are directionally sensitive.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

A lens which will work closer to the sensor works to the disadvantage
of the sensor.


Why?

Angle of attack to the sensor.

myth

So designing a lens so that it could be put in contact with the sensor
would work?

straw man.

No?

How about 2mm away?

that can work, and does. have you heard of cellphone cameras?

After all, it is well known that sensels receive
light with equal facility from all directions in a three dimensional
space.

not by anyone with a clue, it isn't.

On 11/07/2016 6:43 @wiz, nospam wrote:
In article , Noons
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/


groan

Another moron claiming the only advantage of mirrorless is weight.

When are "web-site-experts" gonna start THINKING before they start
writing?...

they think about how to get hits. content doesn't matter.



Ayup! Unfortunately...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:07:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

A lens which will work closer to the sensor works to the disadvantage
of the sensor.


Why?

Angle of attack to the sensor.

myth

So designing a lens so that it could be put in contact with the sensor
would work?

straw man.

No?

How about 2mm away?

that can work, and does. have you heard of cellphone cameras?

I thought we were talking real cameras with larger sensor size.

After all, it is well known that sensels receive
light with equal facility from all directions in a three dimensional
space.

not by anyone with a clue, it isn't.

Turn on your irony detector.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/07/2016 11:04, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:38:54 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:13:14 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
A lens which will work closer to the sensor works to the disadvantage
of the sensor.


Why?

Angle of attack to the sensor.

And there is no suitable lens design?

Besides the angle should only be an issue with sensor using microlenses,
not with back-illuminated sensors.

To a point but even then the sensels are directionally sensitive.

Marianne Oelund - who used to post at DPreview - had a lot of expertise
on this topic. AIUI there most certainly was an issue a few years ago
with small photosites and "angle of attack". DXO also observed that at
the time, camera makers were (secretly) making gain adjustments in raw
files to counter for "lost" photons at wide apertures. Leica who'd
inherited a legacy issue with rear exit pupil close to the sensor plane
countered for one effect (vignetting) with offset microlens, Olympus in
the early days of 4/3 promoted the concept that /all/ 4/3 lenses should
be telecentric.
A couple of things since then, microlens design (gapless) improved so
that it became a non-issue. Olympus "forgot" about the idea that lenses
should be telecentic, Leica (and Canon IIRC) forgot about offset
microlenses.
Sony make sensors, 7RII has BSI, kind of state of the art:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
But compared with an 5YO design with very little difference in pixel
density, there's nothing in it. The three stage "kick" in DR (presuming
it isn't noise reduction) probably indicates that there's on-chip
circuitry for multi-stage analogue amplification before a/d conversion.
At base ISO, QE actually seems to be slightly lower.
There's another issue with BSI / no microlens, once pixel density is
high, there's cross-talk between photosites - something Sony had with
smaller (APS-c) BSI sensors.