Would 35 mm lenses be optimal for full frame digital?

In article , Lourens Smak
wrote:

Apart from being able to
use your old lenses for which they were designed, FF has NO advantages.

I thought it was reasonably well established that smaller sensor size
translates to higher noise. Unfortunately, it also translates to lower
cost.

and of course, Nikon has absolutely NO interest in you using a 20 year
old found-on-ebay Nikkor lens, they want you to buy a new lens; they are
in the business of SELLING camera equipment.

There's the real point. The manufacturers want to sell you stuff, and
using a smaller sensor lets them offer it at a lower, "more
competitive" price. Backward compatibility is a trivial-to-nonexistant
concern; in fact if thet can make you think you need new, "digital"
lenses, so much the better.

I make a point of telling manufacturers reps I'm not buying until they
offer a DSLR with a full-frame sensor, but that battle is probably
already lost. Cheaper always wins.

And, to answer the original posters question - there are things the
manufacturers can do to optimise a full-frame lens for digital; in
general the largest possible exit aperture helps keep the rays
perpendicular to the sensor. But that's mostly theoretical; I've never
seen a good film lens NOT produce a good digital image.

In article , Lourens Smak
wrote:

Apart from being able to
use your old lenses for which they were designed, FF has NO advantages.

I thought it was reasonably well established that smaller sensor size
translates to higher noise. Unfortunately, it also translates to lower
cost.

and of course, Nikon has absolutely NO interest in you using a 20 year
old found-on-ebay Nikkor lens, they want you to buy a new lens; they are
in the business of SELLING camera equipment.

There's the real point. The manufacturers want to sell you stuff, and
using a smaller sensor lets them offer it at a lower, "more
competitive" price. Backward compatibility is a trivial-to-nonexistant
concern; in fact if thet can make you think you need new, "digital"
lenses, so much the better.

I make a point of telling manufacturers reps I'm not buying until they
offer a DSLR with a full-frame sensor, but that battle is probably
already lost. Cheaper always wins.

And, to answer the original posters question - there are things the
manufacturers can do to optimise a full-frame lens for digital; in
general the largest possible exit aperture helps keep the rays
perpendicular to the sensor. But that's mostly theoretical; I've never
seen a good film lens NOT produce a good digital image.

Dave wrote:

Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

Some of them appear to be just that, reduced scale lenses to take advantage of
the smaller sensor. Others, called "digital" are also said to be compatible
with the full frame size. Read the fine print.

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

No, they will work fine. Older Nikon lenses may have issues when used with a
digital SLR. (metering problems, mostly). See:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...atibility.html



It would seem that the VR technology could be built into a camera body,
making this unnecessary in the lens. You could do this by making an
exposure of length T consist of n exposures of time T/n in a digital
camera. The body sense movement, and ensure that all n exposures are
corrected to overlap digitally before writing out the image. That would
take a lot of internal memory (to store lots of images), but could be done.

I'm not sure that would work. Consider an exposure of 1/60. The shutter is
completely open. Any given pixel, as the lens axis moves, is recording
("charging") information from slightly different parts of the scene. I don't
think the sensors can be read and reset fast enough to do this often enough to
allow the remapping of the 'packets' of light.

Minolta have simply made the sensor movable in the camera. (A1,A2, Z3, 7D), they
call this anti-shake. It is on the order of 1 stop less effective than VR or
Canon's IS, however.


I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

"file" cameras?
See the chart linked above.

G'luck,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Dave wrote:

Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

Some of them appear to be just that, reduced scale lenses to take advantage of
the smaller sensor. Others, called "digital" are also said to be compatible
with the full frame size. Read the fine print.

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

No, they will work fine. Older Nikon lenses may have issues when used with a
digital SLR. (metering problems, mostly). See:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...atibility.html



It would seem that the VR technology could be built into a camera body,
making this unnecessary in the lens. You could do this by making an
exposure of length T consist of n exposures of time T/n in a digital
camera. The body sense movement, and ensure that all n exposures are
corrected to overlap digitally before writing out the image. That would
take a lot of internal memory (to store lots of images), but could be done.

I'm not sure that would work. Consider an exposure of 1/60. The shutter is
completely open. Any given pixel, as the lens axis moves, is recording
("charging") information from slightly different parts of the scene. I don't
think the sensors can be read and reset fast enough to do this often enough to
allow the remapping of the 'packets' of light.

Minolta have simply made the sensor movable in the camera. (A1,A2, Z3, 7D), they
call this anti-shake. It is on the order of 1 stop less effective than VR or
Canon's IS, however.


I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

"file" cameras?
See the chart linked above.

G'luck,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Dave wrote:

Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

Some of them appear to be just that, reduced scale lenses to take advantage of
the smaller sensor. Others, called "digital" are also said to be compatible
with the full frame size. Read the fine print.

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

No, they will work fine. Older Nikon lenses may have issues when used with a
digital SLR. (metering problems, mostly). See:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...atibility.html



It would seem that the VR technology could be built into a camera body,
making this unnecessary in the lens. You could do this by making an
exposure of length T consist of n exposures of time T/n in a digital
camera. The body sense movement, and ensure that all n exposures are
corrected to overlap digitally before writing out the image. That would
take a lot of internal memory (to store lots of images), but could be done.

I'm not sure that would work. Consider an exposure of 1/60. The shutter is
completely open. Any given pixel, as the lens axis moves, is recording
("charging") information from slightly different parts of the scene. I don't
think the sensors can be read and reset fast enough to do this often enough to
allow the remapping of the 'packets' of light.

Minolta have simply made the sensor movable in the camera. (A1,A2, Z3, 7D), they
call this anti-shake. It is on the order of 1 stop less effective than VR or
Canon's IS, however.


I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

"file" cameras?
See the chart linked above.

G'luck,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Lourens Smak wrote:

In article , Dave wrote:


Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?


There is only 1 such camera, made by Kodak.

EOS 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II are full frame.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Lourens Smak wrote:

In article , Dave wrote:


Lots of cameras use a 35mm film size - I have just bought one myself.

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?


There is only 1 such camera, made by Kodak.

EOS 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II are full frame.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

From: Dave

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

I have a full-frame Canon 1Ds and used with my best "L" lenses I get better
large prints from it than I do from 35 mm fine-grained film in my EOS-3 bodies
with the same lenses. I've heard that if the lenses are poor it shows up
quicker with full-frame digital than with film, especially wide angle lenses
shot at wider apertures. Other than that the only people championing so-called
"digital optimized" lenses are the companies trying to sell them.

But I guarantee you that you don't need specialized lenses "optimized for
digital" to get great results with full frame digital bodies, based on what
I've seen (I haven't shot wide angles wide open though).

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

That's a superb lens and it should do fine with a full frame digital body ... I
have something comparable with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L and it's fine with the
1Ds ... note the only full-frame body that accepts your Nikon lenses is made by
Kodak though and it's not clear if Nikon will stick to the 1.5x sensor size or
if they'll develop a full-frame sensor. The Kodak body has many features that
make it practically unusable outside the studio so maybe it's a moot point for
you anyway.

It would seem that the VR technology could be built into a camera body,
making this unnecessary in the lens.

The new Minolta dSLR does this.

I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

Buy high quality lenses and you'll be fine. The possible exception might be
with wide angles wide open ... I have a 17-35 mm f/2.8 L so maybe I should test
it at 17 mm, though I can't recall ever needing to shoot at 17 mm wide open.

Bill

From: Dave

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

I have a full-frame Canon 1Ds and used with my best "L" lenses I get better
large prints from it than I do from 35 mm fine-grained film in my EOS-3 bodies
with the same lenses. I've heard that if the lenses are poor it shows up
quicker with full-frame digital than with film, especially wide angle lenses
shot at wider apertures. Other than that the only people championing so-called
"digital optimized" lenses are the companies trying to sell them.

But I guarantee you that you don't need specialized lenses "optimized for
digital" to get great results with full frame digital bodies, based on what
I've seen (I haven't shot wide angles wide open though).

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

That's a superb lens and it should do fine with a full frame digital body ... I
have something comparable with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L and it's fine with the
1Ds ... note the only full-frame body that accepts your Nikon lenses is made by
Kodak though and it's not clear if Nikon will stick to the 1.5x sensor size or
if they'll develop a full-frame sensor. The Kodak body has many features that
make it practically unusable outside the studio so maybe it's a moot point for
you anyway.

It would seem that the VR technology could be built into a camera body,
making this unnecessary in the lens.

The new Minolta dSLR does this.

I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

Buy high quality lenses and you'll be fine. The possible exception might be
with wide angles wide open ... I have a 17-35 mm f/2.8 L so maybe I should test
it at 17 mm, though I can't recall ever needing to shoot at 17 mm wide open.

Bill

From: Dave

Some new high-end digital SLR cameras use the same size CCD as
conventional 35mm film. Do you think that such cameras would warrant
lenses optimised for digital, so making lenses bought for 35mm film
cameras less than optimal?

I have a full-frame Canon 1Ds and used with my best "L" lenses I get better
large prints from it than I do from 35 mm fine-grained film in my EOS-3 bodies
with the same lenses. I've heard that if the lenses are poor it shows up
quicker with full-frame digital than with film, especially wide angle lenses
shot at wider apertures. Other than that the only people championing so-called
"digital optimized" lenses are the companies trying to sell them.

But I guarantee you that you don't need specialized lenses "optimized for
digital" to get great results with full frame digital bodies, based on what
I've seen (I haven't shot wide angles wide open though).

I've just bought a Nikon F6 body and a rather expensive Nikon 70-200
IF-ED VR lens with vibration reduction (hence the VR) built into the
lens. I'm wondering if such lenses, or other lenses designed for 35mm
SLRs will need (or should) be replaced if using 35mm digital SLRs.

That's a superb lens and it should do fine with a full frame digital body ... I
have something comparable with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L and it's fine with the
1Ds ... note the only full-frame body that accepts your Nikon lenses is made by
Kodak though and it's not clear if Nikon will stick to the 1.5x sensor size or
if they'll develop a full-frame sensor. The Kodak body has many features that
make it practically unusable outside the studio so maybe it's a moot point for
you anyway.

It would seem that the VR technology could be built into a camera body,
making this unnecessary in the lens.

The new Minolta dSLR does this.

I'm just wondering if money invested in lenses for file cameras will
need to be replaced - like manual focus lenses need to be replaced on
auotfocus SLRs.

Buy high quality lenses and you'll be fine. The possible exception might be
with wide angles wide open ... I have a 17-35 mm f/2.8 L so maybe I should test
it at 17 mm, though I can't recall ever needing to shoot at 17 mm wide open.

Bill