I can say with authority that it’s hogwash, having designed optics since the start of the digital era. Nothing against you, of course.. it’s an internet myth or misconstruing of a minor technical detail. As a linear system, the lens has no idea what the imaging media is, so the light strikes both imaging media the same. I speculated on a recent podcast interview that the myth may have sprung from the description of pixels as quantum wells, which makes one think of a water well with some “depth” that needs to be “filled”. That is, however, a failure of analogy. The focal plane array is flat with no structure and the light-sensitive silicon detector starts at the surface.
Trendland, I mean no disrespect at all but let me be blunt: I seriously can't understand what the hell you're writing 90% of the time. For the sake of effective communication could you please convert comments in your native language into google translate and paste the English version in until you've gotten better with grammar? I would love to respond to your comments but I can't tell what you're trying to say. You may want to do the same converting back to your native language because you're missing the full meaning of what you read...
Yeah faberryman you got it - applause!It's a fool's errand to try and figure out what he is talking about. Just skip over his posts. They are gibberish.
Guess you have the job....Yes. Trendland, please seriously consider what has been suggested. Many people here truly can't understand what you're trying to say and often you misinterpret what others write.
This is not disrespect, but a constructive suggestion to help both you and Photrio.
I will be the first to offer that if I'm misunderstood here, I will happily translate it to Hungarian for them.
I get the impression that the only problem is with certain wide angle Leica M-mount lenses. I have not heard of any other manufacturer's wide angle lenses being a problem. If you want to use Leica wide angle M-mount lenses, you best bet is to use a Leica M-mount digital camera.If nothing else, the degraded corner and edge performance of short-focal-length M-mount rangefinder lenses used on mirrorless digital cameras suggests a need to adapt optical designs to the attributes of the sensor cover glass and microlenses.
...
People - you Americans should train your skills in foreign languages - that can help!
Welcome to the club!Or, like me, just put him on IGNORE and not waste time trying to understand the gibberish.
Theo I know - you are from HungariaNot everyone here is American, nor a native English speaker.
I get the impression that the only problem is with certain wide angle Leica M-mount lenses. I have not heard of any other manufacturer's wide angle lenses being a problem.
If you want to use Leica wide angle M-mount lenses, you best bet is to use a Leica M-mount digital camera.
I understand that the Leica M mount sensor has special microlenses to counteract this issue. Whether such microlenses introduce shortcomings with respect to other lenses, thus precluding general adoption in other cameras, is unknown to me. My own feeling is use your Leica M-mount lenses on Leica bodies; that is what they are designed for. If you want to use Leica M-mount lenses on other bodies, accept that it is an issue. Other camera makers shouldn't be taken to task for not providing optimum performance for a handful of lenses from other manufacturers owned by a small group of photographers on cameras they weren't designed for. For best results, use the proper tool for the job and all that.I agree with this. But I am interested in Jason's perspective on the optical design considerations that apply to this problem.
In my opinion, you have to step up to the Zeiss Otus to beat it.
So when Konica Minolta came out with D lens, just a marketing ploy, no real difference between the D and older lens? I don't shoot much color film anymore, but when I have and use D lens on Minolta 9 I don't see any difference in color. Can say the same with Sigma, the Sigma 50 1.4 (Older Version but post film) worked just fine with color film on SA9.
I am looking at getting either the Nikkor 85/1.4D or 85/1.4G for my Nikon F5. While I know the G is a much newer design, I am wondering if the older D, designed in the era of film would actually be a better lens for me. Here is why I ask:
Many, many years ago (early 2000's) I recall reading that long, fast lens designed for film photography where not idea of digital photography because of DOF and the media being used... What I recall was that the lens design for films took into account that the RGB layer in the film was physically at a different distance (plains) from the lens. Because of that, company, especially in the large format world, started coming out with lens for digital sensors where all three colors needed to focus at the same plain.
My questions:
- Is this a true fact that lens designed for film don't work so well on digital and thus lens designed for digital don't work so well on film?
- If this is the case, does anyone know if the Nikkor 85/1.4G is a digital lens design? I assume it is since it came out only a few years ago long after digital became the go to format.
I can say with authority that it’s hogwash, having designed optics since the start of the digital era. Nothing against you, of course.. it’s an internet myth or misconstruing of a minor technical detail. As a linear system, the lens has no idea what the imaging media is, so the light strikes both imaging media the same. I speculated on a recent podcast interview that the myth may have sprung from the description of pixels as quantum wells, which makes one think of a water well with some “depth” that needs to be “filled”. That is, however, a failure of analogy. The focal plane array is flat with no structure and the light-sensitive silicon detector starts at the surface.
It's a fool's errand to try and figure out what he is talking about. Just skip over his posts. They are gibberish.
Surely optical designs have changed. It seems the new digital lenses are much bigger and have more elements. ... The new Panasonic 50mmm is also huge and heavy.
Please, authority? At the bare minimum there is a piece of glass in front of the sensor, you can see it and you can clean it when dirt lands on it and shows up in the images. Just take the camera, fire the shutter on bulb and look at it. That makes it 3D. It is there, you can see it yourself and touch it.
By the way, here's what Canon has to say.
https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/capturing_the_image/microlenses.do
Not to go off-topic, but, I held one of these Panasonics just this morning. It is larger than the 85mm "normal" lens on my RB67! The rep "explained" that it was because it was f1.4. I pulled out my Takumar 50mm f1.4 when I got home just to assure myself I wasn't crazy ...
...
In any case, not sure what point you’re (film_man) trying to make but it has been noted.
I know from use, on a mirrorless body like a sony A7, a lot of the older design rangefinder wide lenses smear and basically look pretty horrible due to the light ray angles. This is a pretty well known issue that these lenses that work fine with film, are almost useless on a digital body.As a linear system, the lens has no idea what the imaging media is, so the light strikes both imaging media the same. I speculated on a recent podcast interview that the myth may have sprung from the description of pixels as quantum wells, which makes one think of a water well with some “depth” that needs to be “filled”. That is, however, a failure of analogy. The focal plane array is flat with no structure and the light-sensitive silicon detector starts at the surface.
I get the impression that the only problem is with certain wide angle Leica M-mount lenses. I have not heard of any other manufacturer's wide angle lenses being a problem. If you want to use Leica wide angle M-mount lenses, you best bet is to use a Leica M-mount digital camera.
Yes, please, authority. I’ve been designing optics for quite some time and know very well what I’m talking about. Of course, we all know that expertise doesn’t count for squat on the internet and *certainly* not on photrio.
In any case, not sure what point you’re trying to make but it has been noted.
I might be missing something important, but if the light is striking the sensor/film straight-on, does that not mean that the light is unfocused? Does not being in focus necessarily mean that the light is at an angle as it strikes the sensor/film?The rough explanation I heard regarding lenses "made for digital" was that such lenses were optimized so that light would strike the sensor more straight-on rather than at an angle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?