http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247655/142
http://www.omuser.com/thread-222233-1-1.html
Is it caused by internal sensor reflections ?
http://www.omuser.com/thread-222233-1-1.html
Is it caused by internal sensor reflections ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
EdnaBambrick
Leading Member
- Messages
- 776
- Reaction score
- 630
I wouldn't blame the camera for this. Poor technique and lenses like the Hollywood Distagon 2.0 28mm produce a lot of sagittal coma flare when shot off axis at bright lights.
One needs to conduct multiple tests with similar lenses to see the impact of different f-stops and lens designs.
For what it's worth the preferred version IMHO is the single strong flare vs multiple flares. It's much easier to correct in post. Video guys seem to prefer the opposite, in fact they often strive to create the effect in advertisements and entertainment.
The one lens where it's important to me is WA - the new Zeiss 21mm works better than the old Contax 21mm which both work better than the Nikon 14-24 ed 2.8
If I shot a Nikon FF I'd go with the 14-24 though - there's little to object to with that lens
One needs to conduct multiple tests with similar lenses to see the impact of different f-stops and lens designs.
For what it's worth the preferred version IMHO is the single strong flare vs multiple flares. It's much easier to correct in post. Video guys seem to prefer the opposite, in fact they often strive to create the effect in advertisements and entertainment.
The one lens where it's important to me is WA - the new Zeiss 21mm works better than the old Contax 21mm which both work better than the Nikon 14-24 ed 2.8
If I shot a Nikon FF I'd go with the 14-24 though - there's little to object to with that lens
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
Looks more like coma issues, or issues maybe from reflections between a filter and the front element.
I guess I see a tiny bit of similar effect here, but noting I would call unacceptable. This was with a Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical.
--
A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)
I guess I see a tiny bit of similar effect here, but noting I would call unacceptable. This was with a Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical.
--
A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)
secondclaw
Well-known member
OP's link shows examples with new FE lenses ...
For example, this one, with FE 35mm:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247655/144#12025459
Whether this is acceptable, its up to individual tastes, but it's certainly there ...
For example, this one, with FE 35mm:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247655/144#12025459
Whether this is acceptable, its up to individual tastes, but it's certainly there ...
Last edited:
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
OP's title was about the camera, not the lenses. I have the same camera and posted an example.
What is your point? Are you saying that the title should have been "Unacceptable flare in night shots with some native lenses on the A7?"
little jim
Well-known member
Here's a shot I took last night during a power failure...
I took lots of shots, most had similar flaring. This shot was the A7 at 6400iso, creative style neutral 0/0/0, WB daylight, handheld, Contax (Zeiss) G45 at F2 (wide open), NR off. My adaptor was the Metabones. Focus was manual on the right candlestick.
It may be technique, it might be sensor. I just had a thought it might be an artifact of the DRO (which was set to auto). I was shooting Raw+Jpeg... the raw file is identical, so not a consequence of jpeg engine.
Jim
I took lots of shots, most had similar flaring. This shot was the A7 at 6400iso, creative style neutral 0/0/0, WB daylight, handheld, Contax (Zeiss) G45 at F2 (wide open), NR off. My adaptor was the Metabones. Focus was manual on the right candlestick.
It may be technique, it might be sensor. I just had a thought it might be an artifact of the DRO (which was set to auto). I was shooting Raw+Jpeg... the raw file is identical, so not a consequence of jpeg engine.
Jim
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
little jim
Well-known member
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
Well, if it's like the G35, the G45 probably has a curved rear element directly exposed and (due to the RF registration) pretty close to the sensor plane.
The Canon lens I used has a thin, flat, glass cover over the rear element, and is at least 15mm further from the sensor.
I wonder how a polarizer would affect the results - though the extra loss of light would be annoying.
The Canon lens I used has a thin, flat, glass cover over the rear element, and is at least 15mm further from the sensor.
I wonder how a polarizer would affect the results - though the extra loss of light would be annoying.
secondclaw
Well-known member
Huh? What are you hinting at?
I was responding to Trollman, who mentioned that reflections are due to some old lenses with inferior lenses and coating. I pointed out TO HIM, not to OP, that the flares are also visible with native glass, and provided an example.
I was responding to Trollman, who mentioned that reflections are due to some old lenses with inferior lenses and coating. I pointed out TO HIM, not to OP, that the flares are also visible with native glass, and provided an example.
little jim
Well-known member
The CG45/2 is a "planar" design I think. Its rear lens surface is significantly far from the plane of the sensor, much more so than my 28mm Biogon. Because of this, the lens normally performs very well.
Regards,
Jim.
Regards,
Jim.
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
OK. I see what you're saying.
Any idea whether there was a filter on the FE35 in your example?
Any idea whether there was a filter on the FE35 in your example?
secondclaw
Well-known member
If I remember correctly the examples were without a filter. I actually have seen this exact style of flare with NEX-7 and RF lenses (and I never use filters with them), the flares happen all the time with strong light sources, but it doesn't bother me.
viking79
Forum Pro
I have seen unuseable flare/hot spots with some lenses on the A7. The Tamron 52B macro is one of them, extremely bad flare from sensor reflections. This is the lens, not the sensor. Reflections are much less on APS-C, but still bad.
There is a reason they use special coating on the rear elements of modern lenses to deal with sensor reflections.
Eric
Lightshow
Veteran Member
It's the lens IMO, either internal reflections or the lens reflecting licht back to the sensor.
Here's a shot with my CV15 that has multiple reflections, they go away or change with different lenses, my OM's are good at rejecting reflections and coma. You'll see the angle comes from the center.
--
Dear kkx,
what is wrong with a little bit of flare? Otherwise your pics would look so antiseptic, dead and sillily "perfect". And would be of no use other than show off gear.
What is the essence and aim of picture taking: showing beautiful images and these are never harmed by a little flare. Let the image speak to us.
But this is a gear forum and nobody sees the emptiness of these technical night pictures, they are so empty of spirit and empty of art. Therefore I do not care. About flare.
what is wrong with a little bit of flare? Otherwise your pics would look so antiseptic, dead and sillily "perfect". And would be of no use other than show off gear.
What is the essence and aim of picture taking: showing beautiful images and these are never harmed by a little flare. Let the image speak to us.
But this is a gear forum and nobody sees the emptiness of these technical night pictures, they are so empty of spirit and empty of art. Therefore I do not care. About flare.
secondclaw
Well-known member
It should be up to the artist. Just like control of DOF, slow shutter effects, starburst/sunray, vignette, etc. Nothing wrong with that. I do agree though, weak flares are OK, but they can get so strong that they break composition - force the eye toward the flare in the corner instead of main object. Just like the rest of the composition, it should be under photographer's control.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum