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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J. Littleboy, Sep 22, 2005.

  1. David J. Littleboy

    Stacey Guest

    In your opinion. It sure doesn't do anything for me.
     
    Stacey, Sep 24, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 24, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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!
     
    Louise Bremner, Sep 24, 2005
    #23
  4. David J. Littleboy

    Stacey Guest

    With an adapter, yes. The ZD optics are much better from my testing though.
    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, Sep 24, 2005
    #24
  5. David J. Littleboy

    Brian Baird Guest

    Again, you're bonkers.
    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.
    Whatever. You're an idiot, we all know it. I sleep okay at night.
     
    Brian Baird, Sep 24, 2005
    #25
  6. 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/31744-2346-14-1.html

    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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 24, 2005
    #26
  7. David J. Littleboy

    Brian Baird Guest

    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.
     
    Brian Baird, Sep 24, 2005
    #27
  8. Well dream on Brian, as you sleep well in total ignorance of some
    things. http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/index.html
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 24, 2005
    #28
  9. David J. Littleboy

    Chris Brown Guest

    Not just wide angles even - most SLRs have to do it with a plain old 50mm
    lens.
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 24, 2005
    #29
  10. 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."
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 24, 2005
    #30
  11. David J. Littleboy

    Chris Brown Guest

    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?
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 24, 2005
    #31
  12. 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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 24, 2005
    #32
  13. David J. Littleboy

    kashe Guest

    kashe, Sep 24, 2005
    #33
  14. The problem you and the idiots who senselessly go on about what I said
    regarding Chromatic Aberrations from a sensor simply not existing...

    Is that you stupidly believe by deriding me for pointing out something
    you steadfastly deny is possible and what's more producing evidence to
    substantiate it...

    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.
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 25, 2005
    #34
  15. "Chromatic Aberration from Canon 17-35mm lens"

    Oops: that's _not_ a Canon lens: that's an off-brand 17-35 2.8-4.0 lens.
    But it doesn't exist _by definition_. Chromatic abberation is when a lens
    focuses different frequencies of light at different points, i.e. has
    different focal lengths for different colors.

    It's completely unrelated to sensors. Sensors can render chromatic
    abberation when presented with it. (And it shows up exactly the same on
    film if you take the same shot with the same lens. Purple fringing will be
    different. But I've seen purple fringing in film photographs as well: i.e.
    film has troubles with execssively high contrast edges as well.)
    From the evidence so far, it would seem you know anything at all. Heck, you
    can't even read the name of a lens right.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 25, 2005
    #35
  16. David J. Littleboy

    Brian Baird Guest

    Oly has a lot invested in 4/3rds... to fix a problem that never existed.
    So, you can believe the hype, or you can use half you brain and figure
    things out on your own. Since you're nuttier than squirrel shit, I
    don't expect much of anything from you.
     
    Brian Baird, Sep 25, 2005
    #36
  17. David J. Littleboy

    Brian Baird Guest

    A sensor can't create chromatic aberrations. You do understand that,
    right?
    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.
     
    Brian Baird, Sep 25, 2005
    #37
  18. 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.
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 25, 2005
    #38
  19. David J. Littleboy

    kashe Guest

    Back to you, Jack. Ass.
     
    kashe, Sep 25, 2005
    #39
  20. David J. Littleboy

    BC Guest

    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


    --
     
    BC, Sep 25, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.