If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting article on dla | Dudley Hanks[_4_] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 23rd 12 02:24 AM |
Interesting article on Hasselblad | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | June 4th 09 08:23 PM |
Interesting article on Hasselblad | David J Taylor[_11_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | June 4th 09 03:12 PM |
Interesting Article -- The Hybrid Darkroom | Summer Wind | In The Darkroom | 0 | September 29th 06 04:11 AM |
Interesting article | Mike K | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 5th 05 07:07 PM |