Digital twin lens reflex.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by James Silverton, Apr 19, 2013.

  1. I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    search one out.
    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Apr 19, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. James Silverton

    philo  Guest

    On 04/19/2013 02:44 PM, James Silverton wrote:
    > I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    > digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > search one out.



    No, there would be no need to do so.

    I have a Mamya C220 that I retired a few years ago.
    As much as i loved it, my 50D beat it .

    I plan to keep it though as I doubt I could get ten dollars for it.

    --
    https://www.createspace.com/3707686
     
    philo , Apr 19, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. James Silverton

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    wrote:
    > I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    > digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > search one out.
    > --
    > Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >
    > Extraneous "not." in Reply To.


    No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.
     
    RichA, Apr 20, 2013
    #3
  4. On 4/21/2013 11:39 AM, Bowser wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >>> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >>> search one out.
    >>> --
    >>> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >>>
    >>> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    >>
    >> No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    >> soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.

    >
    > maybe, but not until the mirrorless cams are fast enough for sports
    > and journalism work, not to mention other uses, like BIF.
    >
    > I'm a mirrorless user only, and don't see that on the horizon.
    >


    I have a quite recent point and shoot camera whose viewing screen, like
    all I have tried, washes out in bright sunlight. It also has an optical
    finder, which I made sure of before I bought it.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Apr 21, 2013
    #4
  5. James Silverton

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 21, 2:46 pm, James Silverton <>
    wrote:
    > On 4/21/2013 11:39 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera.Do
    > >>> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > >>> search one out.
    > >>> --
    > >>> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    >
    > >>> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    >
    > >> No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras.  Pretty
    > >> soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.

    >
    > > maybe, but not until the mirrorless cams are fast enough for sports
    > > and journalism work, not to mention other uses, like BIF.

    >
    > > I'm a mirrorless user only, and don't see that on the horizon.

    >
    > I have a quite recent point and shoot camera whose viewing screen, like
    > all I have tried, washes out in bright sunlight. It also has an optical
    > finder, which I made sure of before I bought it.
    >
    > --
    > Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >
    > Extraneous "not." in Reply To.


    LCD screens aren't what is going to dominate, unless you shoot with a
    phone. EVF's are going to be the norm shortly.
    They already eclipse optical viewfinders in a few areas. BTW, I saw
    someone shooting with a TLR today, it's kind of a novelty. Finding
    someone to develop 120 films is also fun.
     
    RichA, Apr 22, 2013
    #5
  6. James Silverton

    DanP Guest

    On Saturday, April 20, 2013 4:13:10 AM UTC+1, RichA wrote:


    > No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    > soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.



    Nooooooooooooo


    DanP
     
    DanP, Apr 22, 2013
    #6
  7. James Silverton

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 20/04/2013 05:13, RichA wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    > wrote:
    >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >> search one out.
    >> --
    >> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >>
    >> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    >
    > No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    > soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.
    >


    You do know what a "view camera" is, right?
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Apr 22, 2013
    #7
  8. James Silverton

    Peabody Guest

    James Silverton says...
    >I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >search one out.


    Maybe you could a put a digital back on one of these:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX2vpn3v15w
     
    Peabody, Apr 22, 2013
    #8
  9. On 4/22/2013 6:31 PM, Peabody wrote:
    > James Silverton says...
    >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >> search one out.

    >
    > Maybe you could a put a digital back on one of these:
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX2vpn3v15w
    >
    >

    I seem to remember that you once could buy interchangeable double lenses
    for twin lens cameras. Was the brand Mamiya?

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Apr 23, 2013
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Bowser <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    > >wrote:
    > >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    > >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > >> search one out.
    > >> --
    > >> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    > >>
    > >> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    > >
    > >No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    > >soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.

    >
    > maybe, but not until the mirrorless cams are fast enough for sports
    > and journalism work, not to mention other uses, like BIF.
    >
    > I'm a mirrorless user only, and don't see that on the horizon.


    The biggest problem has always been in focusing performance. Prisms on
    optical sensors under the viewfinder of a DSLR let the camera jump
    instantly into focus. Optional focus screens with prisms let a
    photographer do the same manually. Mirrorless cameras need to cycle the
    focus plane back and forth and follow the direction with higher
    contrast. It's very slow and it eats up battery power.

    The tech to put the same fast focusing optics on digital sensors is
    still evolving. It can be done but it, being permanently attached,
    hurts the image quality. DSLRs have the advantage that everything moves
    out of the way for the photo.
    --
    I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Apr 23, 2013
    #10
  11. James Silverton

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 22, 10:00 am, Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    > On 20/04/2013 05:13, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    > >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > >> search one out.
    > >> --
    > >> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    >
    > >> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    >
    > > No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras.  Pretty
    > > soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.

    >
    > You do know what a "view camera" is, right?


    That has the same basic optical systems as a DSLR. Think about it;
    it's an image from a lens projected on a frosted screen.
     
    RichA, Apr 24, 2013
    #11
  12. James Silverton

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 23, 12:27 am, Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >  Bowser <> wrote:
    > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > > >On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    > > >wrote:
    > > >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera.. Do
    > > >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > > >> search one out.
    > > >> --
    > > >> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    >
    > > >> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    >
    > > >No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras.  Pretty
    > > >soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.

    >
    > > maybe, but not until the mirrorless cams are fast enough for sports
    > > and journalism work, not to mention other uses, like BIF.

    >
    > > I'm a mirrorless user only, and don't see that on the horizon.

    >
    > The biggest problem has always been in focusing performance.  Prisms on
    > optical sensors under the viewfinder of a DSLR let the camera jump
    > instantly into focus.  Optional focus screens with prisms let a
    > photographer do the same manually.  Mirrorless cameras need to cycle the
    > focus plane back and forth and follow the direction with higher
    > contrast.  It's very slow and it eats up battery power.
    >
    > The tech to put the same fast focusing optics on digital sensors is
    > still evolving.  It can be done but it, being permanently attached,
    > hurts the image quality.  DSLRs have the advantage that everything moves
    > out of the way for the photo.
    > --


    Assuming the image is actually in-focus.
     
    RichA, Apr 24, 2013
    #12
  13. James Silverton

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 24/04/2013 02:33, RichA wrote:
    > On Apr 22, 10:00 am, Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    >> On 20/04/2013 05:13, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >>>> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >>>> search one out.
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    >>
    >>>> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

    >>
    >>> No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    >>> soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.

    >>
    >> You do know what a "view camera" is, right?

    >
    > That has the same basic optical systems as a DSLR. Think about it;
    > it's an image from a lens projected on a frosted screen.


    That's the definition of "camera".

    So, how that make sense of your statement that the superfluity of
    viewfinders on digital cameras will lead to the demise of view cameras?
    One has nothing to do with the other, and indeed the view camera seems
    to be going through something of a renaissance with digital backs become
    more affordable.
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Apr 24, 2013
    #13
  14. On 4/24/2013 1:50 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 4/22/13 12:27 PM, in article ,
    > "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:14:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 21, 2:46 pm, James Silverton <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On 4/21/2013 11:39 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, James Silverton <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >>>>>>> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >>>>>>> search one out.
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> No, you don't need a separate reflex view for digital cameras. Pretty
    >>>>>> soon, all optical view cameras will be gone.
    >>>>
    >>>>> maybe, but not until the mirrorless cams are fast enough for sports
    >>>>> and journalism work, not to mention other uses, like BIF.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'm a mirrorless user only, and don't see that on the horizon.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a quite recent point and shoot camera whose viewing screen, like
    >>>> all I have tried, washes out in bright sunlight. It also has an optical
    >>>> finder, which I made sure of before I bought it.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >>>>
    >>>> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
    >>>
    >>> LCD screens aren't what is going to dominate, unless you shoot with a
    >>> phone. EVF's are going to be the norm shortly.
    >>> They already eclipse optical viewfinders in a few areas. BTW, I saw
    >>> someone shooting with a TLR today, it's kind of a novelty. Finding
    >>> someone to develop 120 films is also fun.

    >>
    >> Pretty funny. Over the weekend I shot a roll of 120 with my Yashica
    >> Mat 124G and a roll with my Minox B. The Minox drew a few stares. I
    >> just had the Minox CLA'd and it seems to work fine. I'll know in a
    >> week or so when the film returns. Damn. Remember those days?

    >
    > Last year a friend gave me his long-deceased brother's Minox B to add to my
    > dusty shelf collection of Kodak Brownies, various fold-up 620s, Argus &
    > Kodak Duraflex TLRs and many Polaroids from the 50s and 60s.
    >
    > A couple of months ago a friend caught his eye on the Minox and I took it
    > off the shelf to show him the workings of the device. That was when I
    > discovered that there was a roll of film therein.
    >
    > A Google search turned up Blue Moon Camera & Machine in Portland as
    > processors. After speaking with I Rep, I somewhat reluctantly decided to
    > blow a few bucks to see what might turn up besides a fogged-over tiny strip
    > of 9mm film. To my surprise, the film came back along with several highly
    > defined sepia images. I was sure that the film, which had been in the camera
    > since the late 70s would be useless. I had no idea that latent images could
    > exist for almost thirty-five years!
    >
    > <http://www.bluemooncamera.com/Minox_Frequently_Asked_Questions.php>
    >
    > Apparently, Minox is not producing film at this time, but they technically
    > have not stopped production.
    >
    > Just my .02...
    >

    The stuff seems to exist even if it is not being made by Minox. Try
    Googling for minox camera film.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Apr 24, 2013
    #14
  15. Bowser <> wrote:

    > The GH3, in single shot AF mode, is *very* quick, and easily much
    > quicker than the 5D II or 6D models I've shot.


    'easily much quicker'? As in how many milliseconds? How about
    you use a lens a step or 2 above kit lens or known slow-to-focus
    focus lens (I hear tell the 85mm f/1.2 belongs in this class)
    and do actually *measure* AF performance? And in the same
    environment, too ...

    >>The tech to put the same fast focusing optics on digital sensors is
    >>still evolving. It can be done but it, being permanently attached,
    >>hurts the image quality. DSLRs have the advantage that everything moves
    >>out of the way for the photo.


    > I don't think embedded PDAF is the future. It's a stop-gap at best
    > until CDAF catches up. I believe it can, and will eventually.


    It cannot. CDAF starts way too often into the wrong
    direction. If it doesn't, it's embedded PDAF.

    If you speed up the lens movement (and you must, for CDAF),
    PDAF speeds will improve likewise. If you speed up sensor
    reading and/or increase low light sensitivity, the PDAF
    sensors will improve just as well.

    > One huge advantage of CDAF is focusing accuracy. There's no need to AF
    > calibration like there can be with PDAF since you're focusing right on
    > the sensor.


    So add a 'calibrate PDAF'-function that pre-focuses with PDAF
    (just for speed reasons), fine-focuses with CDAF (preferably
    on a flat, orthogonal target), measures PDAF, checks again with
    CDAF that the focus hasn't moved (else back to fine-focussing)
    and thus gets the currently correct offsets for PDAF. Would be
    a second with 1 sensor.

    And on a tripod against a wall (or a newspaper on the wall) it'd
    find all offsets within a minute or two --- with individually
    microadjusting for this lens and focal length for every single
    PDAF sensor. You'd need to do this only once or twice ...

    PDAF can be as accurate as CDAF, just mucho faster.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 3, 2013
    #15
  16. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > Bowser <> wrote:


    >> The GH3, in single shot AF mode, is *very* quick, and easily much
    >> quicker than the 5D II or 6D models I've shot.


    > 'easily much quicker'? As in how many milliseconds? How about
    > you use a lens a step or 2 above kit lens or known slow-to-focus
    > focus lens (I hear tell the 85mm f/1.2 belongs in this class)
    > and do actually *measure* AF performance? And in the same
    > environment, too ...


    >>>The tech to put the same fast focusing optics on digital sensors is
    >>>still evolving. It can be done but it, being permanently attached,
    >>>hurts the image quality. DSLRs have the advantage that everything moves
    >>>out of the way for the photo.


    >> I don't think embedded PDAF is the future. It's a stop-gap at best
    >> until CDAF catches up. I believe it can, and will eventually.


    > It cannot. CDAF starts way too often into the wrong
    > direction. If it doesn't, it's embedded PDAF.


    Not necessarily. There's often a chromatic difference between the
    edges of front focus blur and back focus blur which could be
    exploited by CDAF.

    > If you speed up the lens movement (and you must, for CDAF),
    > PDAF speeds will improve likewise. If you speed up sensor
    > reading and/or increase low light sensitivity, the PDAF
    > sensors will improve just as well.


    Not necessarily, because CDAF "sensors" are selected from the very
    large array of image pixel sensors, and the speed problem of finding
    them in the first place is unique to CDAF.

    >> One huge advantage of CDAF is focusing accuracy. There's no need to AF
    >> calibration like there can be with PDAF since you're focusing right on
    >> the sensor.


    > So add a 'calibrate PDAF'-function that pre-focuses with PDAF
    > (just for speed reasons), fine-focuses with CDAF (preferably
    > on a flat, orthogonal target), measures PDAF, checks again with
    > CDAF that the focus hasn't moved (else back to fine-focussing)
    > and thus gets the currently correct offsets for PDAF. Would be
    > a second with 1 sensor.


    And for zooms which need different calibrations for each focal length?
    And lenses with aperture related focus drift which need calibration
    for each aperture? It's the nature of PDAF. however well calibrated,
    to be an approximation based on simplifying assumptions. As megapixels
    increase and lens quality improves yesterday's appropriate simplifying
    assumptions become today's oversimplifications.

    Not to mention the problems of curved planes of focus...

    > And on a tripod against a wall (or a newspaper on the wall) it'd
    > find all offsets within a minute or two --- with individually
    > microadjusting for this lens and focal length for every single
    > PDAF sensor. You'd need to do this only once or twice ...


    > PDAF can be as accurate as CDAF, just mucho faster.


    When you don't care about the inherent residual inaccuracies. If you have an
    old "nifty fifty" with spherical aberration do the best calibration
    you can at f1.4, and then tell me how well it does at f5.6 with that
    calibration. And did I mention curvature of the focus plane? :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 4, 2013
    #16
  17. On 4/19/13 10:13 PM, philo wrote:
    > On 04/19/2013 02:44 PM, James Silverton wrote:
    >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    >> search one out.

    >
    >
    > No, there would be no need to do so.


    I am convinced, we could get a huge potential out of a crossover of that
    camera form with modern digital electronics and a really good electronic
    retina-grade viewfinder behind flaps.
    The typical Rolleiflex angle of view has advantages, moreover you could
    have e.g a tele and a wide lens at the same time and combine both views
    electronically.
    The human eye works that way: high resolution fovea and wide view for
    the rest.
    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, May 4, 2013
    #17
  18. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> Bowser <> wrote:


    >>> The GH3, in single shot AF mode, is *very* quick, and easily much
    >>> quicker than the 5D II or 6D models I've shot.


    >> 'easily much quicker'? As in how many milliseconds? How about
    >> you use a lens a step or 2 above kit lens or known slow-to-focus
    >> focus lens (I hear tell the 85mm f/1.2 belongs in this class)
    >> and do actually *measure* AF performance? And in the same
    >> environment, too ...


    Well?

    >>>>The tech to put the same fast focusing optics on digital sensors is
    >>>>still evolving. It can be done but it, being permanently attached,
    >>>>hurts the image quality. DSLRs have the advantage that everything moves
    >>>>out of the way for the photo.


    >>> I don't think embedded PDAF is the future. It's a stop-gap at best
    >>> until CDAF catches up. I believe it can, and will eventually.


    >> It cannot. CDAF starts way too often into the wrong
    >> direction. If it doesn't, it's embedded PDAF.


    > Not necessarily. There's often a chromatic difference between the
    > edges of front focus blur and back focus blur which could be
    > exploited by CDAF.


    Too weak, to hard to read, ... otherwise they'd be already
    implementing it. And "often" is really fun with EVIL cameras.


    >> If you speed up the lens movement (and you must, for CDAF),
    >> PDAF speeds will improve likewise. If you speed up sensor
    >> reading and/or increase low light sensitivity, the PDAF
    >> sensors will improve just as well.


    > Not necessarily, because CDAF "sensors" are selected from the very
    > large array of image pixel sensors,


    which means the individual pixels are small, and you *have*
    to read the sensor reasonably often for EVFs to work. Which
    means many pixels per second ... more noise, more heat.

    > and the speed problem of finding
    > them in the first place is unique to CDAF.


    It comes down to reading pixels. PDAF also needs to read
    pixels, just not of the main sensor, but of dedicated sensors.


    >>> One huge advantage of CDAF is focusing accuracy. There's no need to AF
    >>> calibration like there can be with PDAF since you're focusing right on
    >>> the sensor.


    >> So add a 'calibrate PDAF'-function that pre-focuses with PDAF
    >> (just for speed reasons), fine-focuses with CDAF (preferably
    >> on a flat, orthogonal target), measures PDAF, checks again with
    >> CDAF that the focus hasn't moved (else back to fine-focussing)
    >> and thus gets the currently correct offsets for PDAF. Would be
    >> a second with 1 sensor.


    > And for zooms which need different calibrations for each focal length?


    You take the short end and the long end and interpolate.
    Works very well if you have reasonable glass.

    > And lenses with aperture related focus drift which need calibration
    > for each aperture?


    CDAF does NOT close the aperture to focus. So CDAF has the
    same problem.

    > It's the nature of PDAF. however well calibrated,
    > to be an approximation based on simplifying assumptions. As megapixels
    > increase and lens quality improves yesterday's appropriate simplifying
    > assumptions become today's oversimplifications.


    PDAF is *faster* and can be /reliably/, /repeatably/ *as
    accurate* as CDAF.

    > Not to mention the problems of curved planes of focus...


    Which affect CDAF just the same.


    >> And on a tripod against a wall (or a newspaper on the wall) it'd
    >> find all offsets within a minute or two --- with individually
    >> microadjusting for this lens and focal length for every single
    >> PDAF sensor. You'd need to do this only once or twice ...


    >> PDAF can be as accurate as CDAF, just mucho faster.


    > When you don't care about the inherent residual inaccuracies.


    Which have been *proven* to be controlable so that you can't
    measure the differences between PDAF, CDAF and manual
    focussing.

    > If you have an
    > old "nifty fifty" with spherical aberration do the best calibration
    > you can at f1.4, and then tell me how well it does at f5.6 with that
    > calibration. And did I mention curvature of the focus plane? :)


    Did I mention that these problems affect CDAF the identical
    way they affect PDAF? Like 'focussing only on one point' and
    'CDAF using wide open aperture'?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 8, 2013
    #18
  19. Laszlo Lebrun <> wrote:

    > The typical Rolleiflex angle of view has advantages, moreover you could
    > have e.g a tele and a wide lens at the same time and combine both views
    > electronically.
    > The human eye works that way: high resolution fovea and wide view for
    > the rest.


    Have you ever noticed that photographs are supposed to be sharp
    even outside a tiny view angle (like the one of the fovea)?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 8, 2013
    #19
  20. James Silverton

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <km2psb$osl$>,
    says...
    >
    > On 4/19/13 10:13 PM, philo wrote:
    > > On 04/19/2013 02:44 PM, James Silverton wrote:
    > >> I enjoyed playing with a friend's much prized Rolleiflex film camera. Do
    > >> digital versions exist for cameras of this class? I was not able to
    > >> search one out.

    > >
    > >
    > > No, there would be no need to do so.

    >
    > I am convinced, we could get a huge potential out of a crossover of that
    > camera form with modern digital electronics and a really good electronic
    > retina-grade viewfinder behind flaps.
    > The typical Rolleiflex angle of view has advantages, moreover you could
    > have e.g a tele and a wide lens at the same time and combine both views
    > electronically.
    > The human eye works that way: high resolution fovea and wide view for
    > the rest.


    I'd like to see some sample shots where that technique was used to good
    effect before I could be convinced that such a camera would be more than
    a niche product.

    Many of the latest generation of DSLR allow waist-level shooting you
    know.
     
    J. Clarke, May 8, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gunther
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    745
    Gunther
    Oct 19, 2004
  2. Gareth Slee

    OT: Reflex Test

    Gareth Slee, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    927
    MudBone
    Aug 2, 2003
  3. Eurydice

    Should I buy a nurical Reflex?

    Eurydice, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    334
    Steven Blackwood
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. Tony

    Digital reflex, 300D good enough?

    Tony, Sep 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    479
    Nick Beard
    Sep 24, 2004
  5. NatHwylc

    cheap digital reflex

    NatHwylc, Jan 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    334
    Stewy
    Jan 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page