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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorlesscameras
On 1/6/2018 10:04 AM, RichA wrote:
If they curve the sensor, all the other lenses out there that people might have adapted will be useless. One of the major points about mirrorless is the ability to mount other mfg and types of lenses. There may be benefits to this, lens size, weight, but it's also a sneaky way for them to make sure you only buy Nikon glass. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60603754 I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. If so, then vintage lenses have less of a disadvantage when projecting onto a curved sensor. Even so, why would this be relevant only to mirrorless cameras? -- best regards, Neil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorless cameras
In article , Neil
wrote: I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. their *ads* made that claim, and as with most ads, it's misleading. the exit pupil of most lenses (including vintage) is far enough forward that it has very little effect on the edges of a sensor, regardless of manufacturer, particularly with slr lenses (to clear the mirror box). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorless cameras
On 2018-01-06 16:21:21 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Neil wrote: I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. their *ads* made that claim, and as with most ads, it's misleading. the exit pupil of most lenses (including vintage) is far enough forward that it has very little effect on the edges of a sensor, regardless of manufacturer, particularly with slr lenses (to clear the mirror box). Well, you could optimize the angle to its center, considering that most lenses are retrofocus these ddays. The big thing though would be to take advantage of the shorter flens distance and put the theoretical nodal point closer to the sensor giving a better angle towards the sensor for incoming photons. http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/21mm-f34-asph/diagram-1200.gif -- teleportation kills |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorless cameras
In article , android
wrote: I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. their *ads* made that claim, and as with most ads, it's misleading. the exit pupil of most lenses (including vintage) is far enough forward that it has very little effect on the edges of a sensor, regardless of manufacturer, particularly with slr lenses (to clear the mirror box). Well, you could optimize the angle to its center, considering that most lenses are retrofocus these ddays. that's the point. most lenses already are. olympus was bragging about doing something everyone else had already been doing. The big thing though would be to take advantage of the shorter flens distance and put the theoretical nodal point closer to the sensor giving a better angle towards the sensor for incoming photons. that is a *higher* angle of incidence on the sensor, the *opposite* of what olympus was claiming. on the other hand, it's trivially remedied in post-processing. http://www.kenr... ignore anything he says. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorless cameras
On 2018-01-06 19:51:22 +0000, nospam said:
In article , android wrote: I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. their *ads* made that claim, and as with most ads, it's misleading. the exit pupil of most lenses (including vintage) is far enough forward that it has very little effect on the edges of a sensor, regardless of manufacturer, particularly with slr lenses (to clear the mirror box). Well, you could optimize the angle to its center, considering that most lenses are retrofocus these ddays. that's the point. most lenses already are. olympus was bragging about doing something everyone else had already been doing. The big thing though would be to take advantage of the shorter flens distance and put the theoretical nodal point closer to the sensor giving a better angle towards the sensor for incoming photons. that is a *higher* angle of incidence on the sensor, the *opposite* of what olympus was claiming. I had one of those Evolts by Olympus. The claimed that their lenses was better adapted to the deph of the photon wells beter than legacy ones. With those that I got in the box it was hard to tell... on the other hand, it's trivially remedied in post-processing. http://www.kenr... ignore anything he says. He seem to be an experinced man with a wast knowledge in the field of photogragraphy giving the masses that that they want! -- teleportation kills |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorless cameras
In article , android
wrote: I had one of those Evolts by Olympus. The claimed that their lenses was better adapted to the deph of the photon wells beter than legacy ones. that was a complete crock. http://www.kenr... ignore anything he says. He seem to be an experinced man with a wast knowledge in the field of photogragraphy giving the masses that that they want! his experience is in fooling people into clicking his links. most of what he says is factually wrong, which he readily admits. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorlesscameras
On 1/6/2018 11:21 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. their *ads* made that claim, and as with most ads, it's misleading. the exit pupil of most lenses (including vintage) is far enough forward that it has very little effect on the edges of a sensor, regardless of manufacturer, particularly with slr lenses (to clear the mirror box). You mean like the old 70-200 on a FF camera? -- PeterN |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
If this is true, Nikon just killed a key attribute of mirrorless cameras
On 2018-01-07 00:17:23 +0000, PeterN said:
On 1/6/2018 11:21 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: I think a curved sensor may work *better* with vintage lenses. I recall that one of the advantages of the Olympus lenses for digital cameras was their optical modification to project directly to the edges of the sensor, whereas the edges received angled projections from vintage lenses, reducing the amount of light the sensor received. their *ads* made that claim, and as with most ads, it's misleading. the exit pupil of most lenses (including vintage) is far enough forward that it has very little effect on the edges of a sensor, regardless of manufacturer, particularly with slr lenses (to clear the mirror box). You mean like the old 70-200 on a FF camera? The thing is since that's a retrofocus design, almost all modern lenses are you could make it more compact and have more design options if the distance between the mount and sensor were shorter. -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D200 for 700 Euros....too good to be true? | Jack[_5_] | Digital Photography | 15 | May 4th 07 07:25 PM |
Nikon D200 for 700 Euros....too good to be true? | Jack[_5_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 15 | May 4th 07 07:25 PM |