Brian Mosley
New member
Yes, the Sony lenses look fantastic on the outside... all shiny metal. That's the most important thing
Cheers
Brian
Cheers
Brian
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Sony might have missed an opportunity in providing a review outfit with their production stuff to them. They would have claimed, "all metal body, harking back" to glory days of film (while using a dog of a manual focus lens to proclaim that the NEX3/5 isn't as sharp as the m4/3rds). :ROTFL:Yes, the Sony lenses look fantastic on the outside... all shiny metal. That's the most important thing
Cheers
Brian
Won't there be a problem with such a short registration distance... in terms of the angle of incidence of light hitting the sensor?
Cheers
Brian
This is an irrelevant fact. The Zeiss T* lens used on the Sony R1 was a fixed lens designed in conjunction with and exclusively for that camera's specific sensor. The rear elements of the lens were designed to collimate the light paths and provide nearly exactly orthogonal incidence of light to sensor across the entire sensor photosite array. The in-lens shutter mechanism allowed the rear elements of the lens to approach arbitrarily close to the sensor assembly....
The Sony R1 had an extremely short distance from rear lens element to sensor ...
I have no problem with the size of the lens vs body. My first "serious" digital camera was the Sony F707 which was a superb performer for its day, with that wonderful fast 5:1 Zeiss zoom on the little swivel body. The lens provides an excellent way to grip the camera and with the swivel body it was brilliant for waist level shooting.This was my first digital camera in 1999 - 2.11 megapixels, 5x optical zoom, USB, -50 +90 degree rotating Lens, No Viewfinder, Aperture range F2.8 - F3.3, LCD 2 ", LCD Dots 123,000............look familiar in any way?
back to the future...
If the light leaving the rear lens element is nearly exactly orthogonal, then why would it be difficult or impossible to achieve with an interchangeable lens? couldn't you just move the lens forward?This is an irrelevant fact. The Zeiss T* lens used on the Sony R1 was a fixed lens designed in conjunction with and exclusively for that camera's specific sensor. The rear elements of the lens were designed to collimate the light paths and provide nearly exactly orthogonal incidence of light to sensor across the entire sensor photosite array. The in-lens shutter mechanism allowed the rear elements of the lens to approach arbitrarily close to the sensor assembly.
It's a design at least very difficult to achieve with an interchangeable lens mount and focal plane shutter, if not impossible. The closest possibility I can think of is Ricoh's interchangeable "lensors".
The whole point of the R1/Zeiss lens design is to put the rear-most elements of the lens as close to the sensor as possible for the best collimation of the light path. You cannot get this close with an interchangeable lens mount and focal plane shutter, for several reasons having to do with mechanical clearances required for removing/replacing the lens as well as practical considerations like potential for handling damage to the rear-projecting portions of the lens assembly when off the camera.If the light leaving the rear lens element is nearly exactly orthogonal, then why would it be difficult or impossible to achieve with an interchangeable lens? couldn't you just move the lens forward?
It must attach via the flash unit's socket, eh? Another completely non-standard item... unusable in any other context.Believe it or not, there actually is an OVF available for the 16mm lens.
Minox did a similar thing with the 5-element Complan lens in the Minox cameras made in the early 1950s: they put the rear most element directly in contact with the film in order to provide maximum correction and a stable film plane location. Those were amongst the best resolving Minox cameras of all, but they ran into inescapable scratching problems due to the film's motion across the lens and most of the cameras were retro-fitted with an alternative four-element design eliminating the rear element, with a small reduction in resolution as a result.
DPR now has a production camera and has posted some samples. Not "decent", but corner performance looks bad in some images.Those are the images I've seen... poor lens quality.
If you see anything decent, I'd appreciate any links :thumbup:
Cheers
Brian
The m4/3 cameras also have non-standard data ports on top, AFAIK. ie. you can't switch EVFs between the two, right? The only difference is that they use a hotshoe to attach the item, whereas the NEX accessories attach to the port itself (probably not much room for a hotshoe on top of those tiny NEX cameras.)It must attach via the flash unit's socket, eh? Another completely non-standard item... unusable in any other context.
I didn't say anything about the film plane being flat. I said the film plane was stable and the light was collimated to the surface. Yes, the surface was curved ... that's irrelevant.You got it completely wrong and the reason why Complan was better than the later Minox lens was the exact opposite.
The Complan did not have corrections (distortions) for the edges as the later Minox lenses did and instead the film plane itself was curved in the earlier Minoxes to achieve maximum sharpness.
I said nothing of "telecentric" either. Back focal length ...the distance from the vertex of the last optical surface of the lens system to the rear focal point ... has nothing to do with what I said either.Let me put it to you more directly. Longer back focal length and telecentricity are directly related.
Your idea of shorter back focal length means more telecentric is totally wrong.