Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:29:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...

The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Related resources
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:29:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

l e o wrote:
> They will now complain of the dust!

LOL but true...
--
http://www.E-Photographers.com
The Photographers Directory: Submit your site!
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:18:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Antonio Cangiano" <antonio@visualcsharp.it> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>
> For those not fluent in Japanese: :-p
> http://tinyurl.com/8shu3

Sheesh! The Japanese is easier to read than the 'translation'<g>.

For example: "But width of the finder beam feeling it is good quickly."

Should be: 'However, as expected, the viewfinder is wonderful.'

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:18:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Antonio Cangiano" <antonio@visualcsharp.it> wrote:
>
>>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>>
>>For those not fluent in Japanese: :-p
>>http://tinyurl.com/8shu3
>
>
> Sheesh! The Japanese is easier to read than the 'translation'<g>.
>
> For example: "But width of the finder beam feeling it is good quickly."
>
> Should be: 'However, as expected, the viewfinder is wonderful.'
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


is that a Sigma lens? Wow... now we can hear more Canon bashers' noise.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:18:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Antonio Cangiano" <antonio@visualcsharp.it> wrote:
> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
> >
> > For those not fluent in Japanese: :-p
> > http://tinyurl.com/8shu3
>
> Sheesh! The Japanese is easier to read than the 'translation'<g>.
>
> For example: "But width of the finder beam feeling it is good quickly."
>
> Should be: 'However, as expected, the viewfinder is wonderful.'

Imagine being given that translation to "brush up", without the
original. I particularly like the various given names....


________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:04:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>
> is that a Sigma lens? Wow...

The 1Ds and 1Dsmk2 users have been very happy with the Stigma 12-24,
assuming they get a good copy. The other lens is the widely disparaged Canon
17-35/2.8 (both the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4.0 trounce it in tests), which
looked good to me in the images there that I looked at<g>.

> now we can hear more Canon bashers' noise.

Since (a) it's the only game in town for a real 12mm FOV, and (b) the
D5/1Ds(2) are the only games in town that actually can use that 12mm FOV,
there isn't any Canon bashing to be done<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:04:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D gsvva$t6k$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>>
>> is that a Sigma lens? Wow...
>
> The 1Ds and 1Dsmk2 users have been very happy with the Stigma 12-24,
> assuming they get a good copy. The other lens is the widely disparaged
> Canon 17-35/2.8 (both the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4.0 trounce it in tests),
> which looked good to me in the images there that I looked at<g>.
>
>> now we can hear more Canon bashers' noise.
>
> Since (a) it's the only game in town for a real 12mm FOV, and (b) the
> D5/1Ds(2) are the only games in town that actually can use that 12mm FOV,
> there isn't any Canon bashing to be done<g>.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Boy, that's some major league distortion in that first one...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:41:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Louise Bremner" <dame_zumari@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> "Antonio Cangiano" <antonio@visualcsharp.it> wrote:
>> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> >> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>> >
>> > For those not fluent in Japanese: :-p
>> > http://tinyurl.com/8shu3
>>
>> Sheesh! The Japanese is easier to read than the 'translation'<g>.
>>
>> For example: "But width of the finder beam feeling it is good quickly."
>>
>> Should be: 'However, as expected, the viewfinder is wonderful.'
>
> Imagine being given that translation to "brush up", without the
> original. I particularly like the various given names....

"As for intense perspective and angle of view, whichever facing, being
funny, there is no ginger."

It may not be translation, but it is poetry...

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@there.is.no.ginger.com
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Louise Bremner" <dame_zumari@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >> "Antonio Cangiano" <antonio@visualcsharp.it> wrote:
> >> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >> >> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
> >> >
> >> > For those not fluent in Japanese: :-p
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/8shu3
> >>
> >> Sheesh! The Japanese is easier to read than the 'translation'<g>.
> >>
> >> For example: "But width of the finder beam feeling it is good quickly."
> >>
> >> Should be: 'However, as expected, the viewfinder is wonderful.'
> >
> > Imagine being given that translation to "brush up", without the
> > original. I particularly like the various given names....
>
> "As for intense perspective and angle of view, whichever facing, being
> funny, there is no ginger."

Bwahahahahah.... I didn't even get that far. So in addition to personal
names, it can't even do simple idioms?

>
> It may not be translation, but it is poetry...

Yerse.... Tends towards the Vogon, though.

________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:41:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:07:44 GMT, dame_zumari@yahoo.com (Louise
Bremner) wrote:

>David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Louise Bremner" <dame_zumari@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> >> "Antonio Cangiano" <antonio@visualcsharp.it> wrote:
>> >> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> >> >> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>> >> >
>> >> > For those not fluent in Japanese: :-p
>> >> > http://tinyurl.com/8shu3
>> >>
>> >> Sheesh! The Japanese is easier to read than the 'translation'<g>.
>> >>
>> >> For example: "But width of the finder beam feeling it is good quickly."
>> >>
>> >> Should be: 'However, as expected, the viewfinder is wonderful.'
>> >
>> > Imagine being given that translation to "brush up", without the
>> > original. I particularly like the various given names....
>>
>> "As for intense perspective and angle of view, whichever facing, being
>> funny, there is no ginger."
>
>Bwahahahahah.... I didn't even get that far. So in addition to personal
>names, it can't even do simple idioms?

I've never seen idoms translated well. Do you know a site that does
idioms well? I'd be interested. :-)
Would "Don't hang a noodle on my ear" translate to "That dog won't
hunt"?
>
>>
>> It may not be translation, but it is poetry...
>
>Yerse.... Tends towards the Vogon, though.
>
>________________________________________________________________________
> Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
> If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D gsqe2$rqo$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
>
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
>
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
> The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


Who's the dressed-up homeless guy in the pictures?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 3:13:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21-Sep-05 16:29, David J. Littleboy wrote:
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...

Are the stains in the upper right and left side of this image a
result of dust particles? I got this problem with the EOS-20D.
They look so familiar...

Thomas

>
> The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 4:35:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>
> I've never seen idioms translated well. Do you know a site that does
> idioms well? I'd be interested. :-)

Uh, no one has ever seen _anything_ translated well _by machine_. (The term
'idiom' is being used in two senses here. Louise was using it to mean
"common turns of phrase", where as you were using it to mean "tasty
phrases". One would hope that a decent MT program would have a reasonably
large dictionary of common phrases...)

> Would "Don't hang a noodle on my ear" translate to "That dog won't
> hunt"?

Dunno. I've been out of the states for 20 years, and haven't heard "Don't
hang a noodle on my ear" before...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 4:35:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:35:42 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've never seen idioms translated well. Do you know a site that does
>> idioms well? I'd be interested. :-)
>
>Uh, no one has ever seen _anything_ translated well _by machine_. (The term
>'idiom' is being used in two senses here. Louise was using it to mean
>"common turns of phrase", where as you were using it to mean "tasty
>phrases". One would hope that a decent MT program would have a reasonably
>large dictionary of common phrases...)
>
>> Would "Don't hang a noodle on my ear" translate to "That dog won't
>> hunt"?
>
>Dunno. I've been out of the states for 20 years, and haven't heard "Don't
>hang a noodle on my ear" before...

It's Russian. It means roughly the same as "that dog won't hunt", or
the speaker doesn't believe what's he's being told.
Like I said, idioms don't traslate well at all.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:09:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
> The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Dunno what lens was used but If I 'd just paid $5500 AUD for a camera
and it produced Chromatic Abberation like is in the first photo which
I'd almost guarantee is from the sensor, not the lens, I'd take it back
for a refund.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:09:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4332e531@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au says...
> Dunno what lens was used but If I 'd just paid $5500 AUD for a camera
> and it produced Chromatic Abberation like is in the first photo which
> I'd almost guarantee is from the sensor, not the lens, I'd take it back
> for a refund.

You're bonkers.

The first image doesn't have any noticeable CA. IN any case, CA is a
function of the lens, not the sensor.

Also, the lens is clearly listed.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 5:02:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>>
>>
>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>>
>>
>> The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at
>>
>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
> Dunno what lens was used but If I 'd just paid $5500 AUD for a camera
> and it produced Chromatic Abberation like is in the first photo which
> I'd almost guarantee is from the sensor, not the lens, I'd take it back
> for a refund.

image problems, minor.

dust on the sensor, a lot.

>
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:13:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob crownfield" <crownfield@verizon.net> wrote:
> Pix on Canvas wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>>> The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at
>>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>>>
>> Dunno what lens was used but If I 'd just paid $5500 AUD for a camera and
>> it produced Chromatic Abberation like is in the first photo which I'd
>> almost guarantee is from the sensor, not the lens, I'd take it back for a
>> refund.
>
> image problems, minor.

The image is flipping amazing: that's a 12mm lens producing a 12mm FOV. With
incredible sharpness; images of that FOV and quality have never (other than
the 1Ds and 1Dsmk2<g>) been even remotely possible before. Sure, there's
minor 1-pixel infelicities at a couple of high-contrast edges (which may be
sharpening artifacts), but other than that, it's incredibly sharp and
detailed. (And the second image is also flipping amazing considering it also
is an el cheapo lens.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
September 24, 2005 2:13:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> The image is flipping amazing:

In your opinion. It sure doesn't do anything for me.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 8:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Funk <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:07:44 GMT, dame_zumari@yahoo.com (Louise
> Bremner) wrote:
>
> >David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "As for intense perspective and angle of view, whichever facing, being
> >> funny, there is no ginger."
> >
> >Bwahahahahah.... I didn't even get that far. So in addition to personal
> >names, it can't even do simple idioms?
>
> I've never seen idoms translated well. Do you know a site that does
> idioms well? I'd be interested. :-)
> Would "Don't hang a noodle on my ear" translate to "That dog won't
> hunt"?

The trouble is, there's no "ginger" in the original. The computer has
mis-parsed the character string *shouganai* as the slightly
ungrammatical *shouga nai* ("no ginger") instead of the very common
phrase *shou ga nai* ("can't be helped"). I'd expect a
machine-translation system to have such phrases stored in it.

________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 8:54:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4333af3b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...

> Your continued kind words are recorded for life Brian. Thank Google for
> that, the next time you need to eat them.

Again, you're bonkers.

> Lenses designed specifically for digital sensors, direct the light at 90
> degrees to the sensor plane and avoid CA from the micro lenses on the
> sensor (or at least try to). Conventional film camera lenses direct
> light to the film at angles other than 90 degrees. This causes Chromatic
> Aberrations from the sensors themselves. Simple digital logic, Brian.

Yeah, too bad angle of light incidence and chromatic aberration aren't
directly linked.

Additionally, you fail to explain why angle of incidence would cause
color shift... because it doesn't.

> Don't be so quick to pull the trigger when you shoot from the hip,
> Brian, you'll end up shooting yourself in the foot and then we'd have to
> call you a Gimp but that name is already taken.

Whatever. You're an idiot, we all know it. I sleep okay at night.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 4:33:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>
>>The image is flipping amazing:
>
>
> In your opinion. It sure doesn't do anything for me.

Hey Stacey... Can you fit earlier Olympus lenses on a E300 (Evolt)? I
just bought some for the seasonal Christmas shoot. Hopefully they'll be
more reliable that the 20Ds were last year.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
September 24, 2005 4:33:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The image is flipping amazing:
>>
>>
>> In your opinion. It sure doesn't do anything for me.
>
> Hey Stacey... Can you fit earlier Olympus lenses on a E300 (Evolt)?

With an adapter, yes. The ZD optics are much better from my testing though.

> I
> just bought some for the seasonal Christmas shoot. Hopefully they'll be
> more reliable that the 20Ds were last year.
>

Just make sure you load the latest firmware. It fixes a metering bug. Also,
don't use auto WB, it's not very consistant.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 6:40:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
> <4333af3b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au says...
>
>> Your continued kind words are recorded for life Brian. Thank Google for
>> that, the next time you need to eat them.
>
> Again, you're bonkers.
>
>> Lenses designed specifically for digital sensors, direct the light at 90
>> degrees to the sensor plane and avoid CA from the micro lenses on the
>> sensor (or at least try to). Conventional film camera lenses direct
>> light to the film at angles other than 90 degrees. This causes Chromatic
>> Aberrations from the sensors themselves. Simple digital logic, Brian.
>
> Yeah, too bad angle of light incidence and chromatic aberration aren't
> directly linked.
>
> Additionally, you fail to explain why angle of incidence would cause
> color shift... because it doesn't.

To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even occur in
a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.

To reiterate, the high angle of incidence "problem" isn't a problem at, it's
just is marketing FUD.

If you don't believe that, crop out 2400 x 1980 pixels from the very upper
right corner (the other corners are in shadow and too dark) of the following
image, sharpen by 120%, r = 1.2, t = 0 (or whatever pleases), and print at
8x10. (This is an 8x10 crop from a 12x18 print.)

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...

Of course, we'll hear a chorus of "it doesn't look all that great to me"
from folks who bought into that fud, but anyone who's head isn't wedged up a
warm dark place, and realizes that this is from a 12mm lens producing a full
12mm FOV, will have trouble getting their jaw off the floor.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 6:40:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dh2osq$rq6$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...

> To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even occur in
> a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
> sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
> to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.

Indeed. Again, the 35mm SLR format relies on reverse telephoto designs
for wide angles, which takes care of the angle of incidence problem.

I'd like to see how Doug explains telephoto lenses that produce
chromatic aberrations with near-perfect angle of incidence.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 6:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d9eb77a729febe4989a54@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>
>Indeed. Again, the 35mm SLR format relies on reverse telephoto designs
>for wide angles, which takes care of the angle of incidence problem.

Not just wide angles even - most SLRs have to do it with a plain old 50mm
lens.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 6:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <43352e52$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>[purple fringing has] nothing to do with the lens. The problem is
>heightened when lenses not specifically designed for digital cameras are
>used.

In two adjacent sentences you manage to claim that something simultaneosuly
has nothing to do with the lens, but is made worse by the lens. Are you sure
you have your position worked out in your head here?
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 11:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <dh2osq$rq6$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
>
>
>>To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even occur in
>>a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
>>sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
>>to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.
>
>
> Indeed. Again, the 35mm SLR format relies on reverse telephoto designs
> for wide angles, which takes care of the angle of incidence problem.
>
> I'd like to see how Doug explains telephoto lenses that produce
> chromatic aberrations with near-perfect angle of incidence.

Well dream on Brian, as you sleep well in total ignorance of some
things. http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/index....

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:56:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <dh2osq$rq6$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
>
>
>>To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even occur in
>>a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
>>sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
>>to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.
>
>
> Indeed. Again, the 35mm SLR format relies on reverse telephoto designs
> for wide angles, which takes care of the angle of incidence problem.
>
> I'd like to see how Doug explains telephoto lenses that produce
> chromatic aberrations with near-perfect angle of incidence.

And yet more from that Canon sponsored "independent" review site.
"It's a huge pity but the DSC-F828 has a fringing problem. We'll call it
'purple fringing' but it's clearly a combination of chromatic
aberrations caused by the interaction of the lens and the micro lenses
on the sensor and enhanced by a certain amount of blooming which carries
the color out further than the original artifact."

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 1:51:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>[purple fringing has] nothing to do with the lens. The problem is
>>heightened when lenses not specifically designed for digital cameras are
>>used.
>
> In two adjacent sentences you manage to claim that something
> simultaneosuly
> has nothing to do with the lens, but is made worse by the lens. Are you
> sure
> you have your position worked out in your head here?

Not only that, but the example he gave was the Sony F828 which has, drum
roll, a lens specifically designed for a digital camera! ROFL.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
September 25, 2005 4:15:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:
"And yet more from that Canon sponsored "independent" review site.
"It's a huge pity but the DSC-F828 has a fringing problem. We'll call
it
'purple fringing' but it's clearly a combination of chromatic
aberrations caused by the interaction of the lens and the micro lenses
on the sensor and enhanced by a certain amount of blooming which
carries
the color out further than the original artifact." "

On the whole, I like DPReview. However, Phil Askey is probably
responsible for more misconceptions about optics than any other man on
the planet.

Brian


--
September 25, 2005 4:34:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
"> To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even
occur in
> a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
> sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
> to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.


Indeed. Again, the 35mm SLR format relies on reverse telephoto designs

for wide angles, which takes care of the angle of incidence problem.

I'd like to see how Doug explains telephoto lenses that produce
chromatic aberrations with near-perfect angle of incidence. "

Its good to see that at least a few people understand the reverse
telephoto thing. With regard to telephoto lenses, many of these
actually force a angle of incidence than you would expect simply to
avoid vignetting at the lens mount throat.

Another phenomenon that the sensor-induced "CA" folks would have a hard
time explaining is the fact that many zoom lenses have a constant exit
pupil distance throughout the zoom range, and yet the lateral color is
not constant. Examples include the Nikkor 50-135/3.5 and 50-300/4.5.

Brian
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 10:25:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <43360015$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> The problem you and the idiots who senselessly go on about what I said
> regarding Chromatic Aberrations from a sensor simply not existing...

A sensor can't create chromatic aberrations. You do understand that,
right?

> They will somehow justify their pathetic insults aimed at me for knowing
> more than them. And then you come out, calling me a lamer for
> retaliating. What a jerk you are.

Doug, you're an idiot. The SECOND photo is the one you reference, yet
you clearly claim the FIRST photo exhibited CA.

The first photo was from a 12-24mm Sigma at 12mm and showed no signs of
CA. I'm sure the angle of incidence was less than perfect, but
amazingly... no CA!

I don't see why you insist on making yourself look like an even bigger
fool.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
September 25, 2005 1:40:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Speaking of reverse telephotos, I looked up "telecentric" as best I
could,
and got something about lenses for industrial inspection/image
processing
whose magnification was constant with subject distance (obviously not
the
sort of lens I'm used to). From that I inferred that "one of the most
traditional and respected lens makers in the world" had completely lost
it
and was spouting lying snake oil in a desperate attempt to get back
into the
game.


Was that inference wrong? I.e., could you point me to a reference that
describes how a 'telecentric' lens could be useful for pictorial
imaging? "


The part about a telecentric lens having magnification constant with
subject distance isn't really accurate. I think its more accurate to
say that if you defocus a telecentric lens the image will become
blurred, but will not change size. Also note that the industrial
inspection lenses you refer to are generally telecentric in both object
and image spaces, and therefore afocal for an object at infinity.

True telecentric lenses are widely used in LCD and DMD projectors due
to the nature of illumination used in these systems.

In photography telecentricity, or at least quasi-telecentricity, does
help eliminate any illumination falloff caused both by the sensor and
by cos^4 effects.

There is nothing wrong with using telecentric lenses for photography,
but it isn't really necessary. As you've pointed out, the optical
constraints imposed by an SLR viewfinder provide enough exit pupil
distance to get good results with digital sensors. Sorry I can't
provide you with a written reference for this, but I have been involved
in several projects where an overly tight telecentricity spec turned
out to be wrong.

Brian
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 4:33:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dh3i3v$2ps$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>[purple fringing has] nothing to do with the lens. The problem is
>>>heightened when lenses not specifically designed for digital cameras are
>>>used.
>>
>> In two adjacent sentences you manage to claim that something
>> simultaneosuly
>> has nothing to do with the lens, but is made worse by the lens. Are you
>> sure
>> you have your position worked out in your head here?
>
>Not only that, but the example he gave was the Sony F828 which has, drum
>roll, a lens specifically designed for a digital camera! ROFL.

It's like rain on your wedding day, or something. ;-)
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127632509.994087.43710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Pix on Canvas wrote:
> "And yet more from that Canon sponsored "independent" review site.
> "It's a huge pity but the DSC-F828 has a fringing problem. We'll call
> it
> 'purple fringing' but it's clearly a combination of chromatic
> aberrations caused by the interaction of the lens and the micro lenses
> on the sensor and enhanced by a certain amount of blooming which
> carries
> the color out further than the original artifact." "
>
> On the whole, I like DPReview. However, Phil Askey is probably
> responsible for more misconceptions about optics than any other man on
> the planet.

Phil Askey being wrong doesn't excuse morons who don't look up things in
reliable references. Or quote advertisements as though they were technical
sources.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Its good to see that at least a few people understand the reverse
> telephoto thing.

<G>

Speaking of reverse telephotos, I looked up "telecentric" as best I could,
and got something about lenses for industrial inspection/image processing
whose magnification was constant with subject distance (obviously not the
sort of lens I'm used to). From that I inferred that "one of the most
traditional and respected lens makers in the world" had completely lost it
and was spouting lying snake oil in a desperate attempt to get back into the
game.

Was that inference wrong? I.e., could you point me to a reference that
describes how a 'telecentric' lens could be useful for pictorial imaging?

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:57:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
>
> That's the second photo, moron.
>
> I said the first one (taken with the Sigma 12-24mm) didn't show CA as
> you claimed.
>
> At least get the photo right before you start ranting, you lunatic.

You still haven't got a clue. And worse, you still hang on to the
delusion that a sensor can't produce the effect I described. You expect
people to believe you - a Usenet troll - over one of the most
traditional and respected lens makers in the world. How bloody pathetic
to even try that for a defense.

You and that delusional reprobate in Japan who is so willing to correct
me on every matter but the one he derided me over, are a classic example
of two dick heads clutching at anything they can to avoid recognizing
they never had a clue about what I was saying in the first place. Stop
stalking me, you're just posting barbs to often to be anything but a troll.

--
Douglas...
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 2:27:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Check out the corner shading... No thanks

Great to have FF but they have to sort out the above first..



"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D gsqe2$rqo$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>
> The above are from a Japanese review of the 5D at
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/09/22/234...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 2:27:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Marli" <xxxx@xxxx.xx> wrote in message
news:4336b4a2$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Check out the corner shading... No thanks
>
> Great to have FF but they have to sort out the above first..

It has not much to do with FF.
It's the lens that causes vignetting, it's the size of the sensor that
records it.

Bart
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 2:27:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4336b4a2$1@quokka.wn.com.au>, Marli <xxxx@xxxx.xx> wrote:
>Check out the corner shading... No thanks

It's a 12mm zoom lens - what do you want, blood?
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 3:36:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Marli" <xxxx@xxxx.xx> wrote:
> Check out the corner shading... No thanks

That's a 12mm FOV: anything better than cos^4 falloff (the theoretical
falloff for a simple lens) and you have to say 'thank you'; that's a
flipping amazing image by any prior photographic standards. And corner
falloff is less than minimal with the 17mm el cheapo lens.

> Great to have FF but they have to sort out the above first..

Sounds like you're too cheap to buy a 5D.

> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...
>> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 7:53:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <43364a4f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> > That's the second photo, moron.
> >
> > I said the first one (taken with the Sigma 12-24mm) didn't show CA as
> > you claimed.
> >
> > At least get the photo right before you start ranting, you lunatic.
>
> You still haven't got a clue. And worse, you still hang on to the
> delusion that a sensor can't produce the effect I described. You expect
> people to believe you - a Usenet troll - over one of the most
> traditional and respected lens makers in the world. How bloody pathetic
> to even try that for a defense.

Wow... you're pretty vituperative and yet... you don't actually say
anything of value. You're the troll, Dougie, not I.

> You and that delusional reprobate in Japan who is so willing to correct
> me on every matter but the one he derided me over, are a classic example
> of two dick heads clutching at anything they can to avoid recognizing
> they never had a clue about what I was saying in the first place. Stop
> stalking me, you're just posting barbs to often to be anything but a troll.

Ha. You started this, not me.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 10:59:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
David J. Littleboy
<davidjl@gol.com>], who wrote in article <dh5buv$jbi$1@nnrp.gol.com>:

> It's completely unrelated to sensors. Sensors can render chromatic
> abberation when presented with it.

Actually, sensors also HAVE some "chromatic" component in the
"abberation" they create. It may result in some "red fringing"
(though I doubt is ever so pronounced to be visible by "naked eye").
However, unless the lens is of fantastically good resolution
the abberations of the lens are going to be much higher, so they will
hide this.

The "abberations" of the sensor are due to non-horizontal MTF curve of
the sensor. The "chromatic" part of these abberation correspond to
MTF curve depending on the frequency of the incoming light.

[The physical reason for it is the electron/hole diffusion. A
captured photon creates an electron/hole pair, which moves in
semiconductor until it is "captured" by one of the capacitors
(=cells); so if a pair is created near a boundary of a cell, it has
a good chance to discharge the neighbour cell instead of the
"proper" one. Photons of different wavelength are captured at
different depth in semiconductor, so electrons/holes travel
different lengths until captured, so those created deeper have a
larger chance to diffuse further away.]

Hope this helps,
Ilya
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 3:26:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> writes:

> Purple fringing is technically not chromatic aberration, though it
> is often mistaken for it. It is a saturation phenomenon in the
> sensor, caused by the overflow of electrons from highly saturated
> pixel sites to nearby unsaturated sites. It tends to be worst in
> cameras with tiny pixels (e.g., 8 megapixel compact digital
> cameras). It has everything to do with the sensor and nothing to do
> with the lens. The problem is heightened when lenses not
> specifically designed for digital cameras are used.

Blooming. Could you explain how the lens COULD change this?

BTW, CCDs and CMOS chips can be fabed with anti-blooming as part
of the design. Cuts well capacity to hell though.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 8:12:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <87hdc7g88t.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, prep@prep.synonet.com
says...
> BTW, CCDs and CMOS chips can be fabed with anti-blooming as part
> of the design. Cuts well capacity to hell though.

I don't think that it's as much as an issue with CMOS, which can do per-
pixel noise sampling and reduction. In any case, blooming isn't a
problem with any modern DSLR CCD or CMOS sensor.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 10:58:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

>Speaking of reverse telephotos, I looked up "telecentric" as best I could,
>and got something about lenses for industrial inspection/image processing
>whose magnification was constant with subject distance (obviously not the
>sort of lens I'm used to).

Here's my understanding of it:
With a non-telecentric lens, all points in the image plane *except* the
one in the very centre are illuminated by a ray bundle that arrives at
the surface on a slant. Roughly speaking, this bundle appears to leave
the lens via the exit pupil and converges on the destination point in
the image surface. Because the centre axis of this cone of light is not
parallel to the optical axis, if you throw the image slightly out of
focus you *also* change the image size.

This will be familiar to anyone who's tried to set an enlarger to make a
print with some object in the image exactly some size, or anyone
trying to frame a macro shot precisely. If you adjust focus, the size
changes. If you adjust size, the focus changes.

Now, imagine a lens whose rear element is larger than the image area,
and whose optics are arranged so there is always *some* ray through the
lens that arrives exactly perpendicular to the image surface. Further,
imagine the designer has cleverly placed a stop inside the lens so that
the *only* rays that reach the image plane are this perpendicular ray,
plus a small and symmetric cone centred on that perpendicular ray.
This is a lens that is telecentric in image space.

Yes, it's going to "waste" a lot of light, since the light cone
converging on any given image point is going to have a small f/number
(e.g. f/8 or f/16) despite the large size of the lens elements.

The unique thing about this lens is that as you adjust focus, the image
remains the same size - because all of the little cones of light are
parallel to the optical axis. So image size is determined solely by
subject-lens distance, and you can adjust for best focus without
messing up the framing.

One use for telecentric lenses is optical printers - the optomechanical
monsters used for film special effects before the age of digital
scanning and recording. An optical printer may project the image of one
frame of one strip of film as an aerial image in the same plane as
another piece of physical film, and then photograph both of those
together onto new film. More complex arrangements with B&W masks
and adding images via beamsplitter are also possible. The images have
to be aligned with a precision of a few microns to avoid seeing "matte
lines" at the boundary between foreground element and background plate.
In this environment, it's obviously very useful to be able to align
images precisely, and then adjust final focus without messing up the
alignment.

Lenses that are telecentric in subject space are used in measuring
instruments, where you're measuring the size of something by projecting
its image on a screen with a scale, and you want it to appear the same
size even if it's slightly out of focus.

Dave
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 8:27:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>
>>Speaking of reverse telephotos, I looked up "telecentric" as best I could,
>>and got something about lenses for industrial inspection/image processing
>>whose magnification was constant with subject distance (obviously not the
>>sort of lens I'm used to).
>
> Here's my understanding of it:

Thanks!

<SNIP>
> Yes, it's going to "waste" a lot of light, since the light cone
> converging on any given image point is going to have a small f/number
> (e.g. f/8 or f/16) despite the large size of the lens elements.
>
> The unique thing about this lens is that as you adjust focus, the image
> remains the same size - because all of the little cones of light are
> parallel to the optical axis. So image size is determined solely by
> subject-lens distance, and you can adjust for best focus without
> messing up the framing.

This makes it pretty clear what the answer is, but you haven't _explicitly_
answered the critical question here. Which is: "Are any of the Oly 4/3
lenses actually telecentric?"

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!