Reading mode: Light Dark

DxOMark on wide apertures.

Go to last post
Great Bustard said:
Rriley said:
Great Bustard said:
Rriley said:
Great Bustard said:
The chart says the EOS 450D loses more than 1 EV at f/1.2.
Click to expand...
yeah, so much for those that handed out a bunch of money to maximise their low light performance, those ultra fast lenses dont come cheap
Click to expand...
It's only a tough break if mFT loses less than that at f/0.95. It would be interesting to see what that result is.
Click to expand...
you really are struggling here, that lens isnt an Olympus product, Olympus were not on the list of manufacturers to whom Ludicrous Landscapes 'Open Letter' was addressed
Click to expand...
...you have that rather misplaced. Let's see if I can't help you out. You see, as I discussed earlier in the thread:
Click to expand...
sure quote yourself again, but thats proof of nothing but an ability to replicate
Great Bustard said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37014029

there's a discrepancy between the Numerical Aperture and the entrance pupil in terms of light gathering that is fundamental and unavoidable -- one of those "laws of physics" things, and it affects all formats.

On top of that , there are differences in the mircolens efficiency and stack height -- properties of the sensor -- that add to the effect.

On top of that, there's a light loss due to light being absorbed or scattered by the lens elements.
Click to expand...
common to all lenses, especially B grade ones.

But what theyre fighting here is mechanical vignetting of the lenses, pixel vignetting, poor telecentric properties, increasing sensor density, very limited prospects for further expansion of microlens efficiency
Great Bustard said:
So, the fact that the lens is not made by Olympus has all of squat to do with it.
Click to expand...
my contention is that telecentric lenses would have relieved some of this

my claim is that the fix the alternatives to that philosophy found was microlenses
the problem theyve come against is one of their own making

theyve made their sensors denser in Mp, and the microlenses (now gapless) have reached a maximum of fill factor. The microlenses to each pixel simply cant be any bigger, and the pixels themselves have become narrower but not proportionally shallower.

Its likely that if the sensors had a lower density, the 'fix' wouldnt have this problem and the microlens over each pixel would be proportionally bigger. In short theyve serviced the needs on the silicon for what they see as a demand for more Mp without adequate microlens geometry to supply the issues it was designed for

so the fix doesnt work at an optimum, they have to gain the system at wide apertures on fast glass, hence more noise is produced than is either indicated or in your case claimed.

And theyre talking 1 e/v, not 1/3 stop
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
and what a tough break for the sisters who claimed that telecentric lenses were just marketing fluff
Click to expand...
Calling Joseph Wisniewski a "sister" is far from kind:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31632124

I'm quite sure Oly has the technical know-how to make a 50mm f1.2 that can match a classic FF 105mm f2.5 in terms of sharpness and bokeh. But doing so would mean coming out of the closet: in effect, admitting that all their talk of "near telecentric lenses" and their rather whacked patent were just so much marketing fluff.

He is likely the most knowledgable person on DPR in terms of lens design.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Great Bustard said:
meh 18 months old
Click to expand...
So has Joseph realized that he was in error in these past 18 months? Why don't you sport me a link.
Great Bustard said:
if people dont wan to be associated with the 'sisters' they can always change their minds

sister ;)
Click to expand...
Nah -- I think I'll stay associated with "sister" Joseph Wisniewski when it comes to lens design, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
you overate yourself, you arent in his league, you never will be, we both know why

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Rriley said:
sure quote yourself again, but thats proof of nothing but an ability to replicate
Click to expand...
Meh. I think my kids are proof enough of that. ;)
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
On top of that, there's a light loss due to light being absorbed or scattered by the lens elements.
Click to expand...
common to all lenses, especially B grade ones.
Click to expand...
All lenses. Or is the Nikon 200-400 / 4 VR an example of a "B grade" lens?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36791385
Rriley said:
But what theyre fighting here is mechanical vignetting of the lenses, pixel vignetting, poor telecentric properties, increasing sensor density, very limited prospects for further expansion of microlens efficiency
Click to expand...
Bob's posts in this thread have thoroughly addressed those points.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
So, the fact that the lens is not made by Olympus has all of squat to do with it.
Click to expand...
my contention is that telecentric lenses would have relieved some of this

my claim is that the fix the alternatives to that philosophy found was microlenses
the problem theyve come against is one of their own making...
Click to expand...
OK, so we have your "contention". That about sums it up.
Rriley said:
And theyre talking 1 e/v, not 1/3 stop
Click to expand...
Yes. I explained that in detail more than once.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
Nah -- I think I'll stay associated with "sister" Joseph Wisniewski when it comes to lens design, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
you overate yourself, you arent in his league, you never will be, we both know why
Click to expand...
What an inane comment to make. Of course I'm not in his league. Nor am I in Bob's league, nor am I in Lee Jay's league. But I learn from them, and you don't. You call them "sisters". That's the big difference between us. Well, who am I kidding? It's but one of the big differences between us.
 
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
The M9 has the kodak sensor that specifically was designed to lesson this effect with an offset microlens structure as you move out to the edges. I wonder if other manufacturers can follow suit or if this is covered under patents.
Click to expand...
undoubtedly patented, but likely easily licensed
Click to expand...
The New Fuji X100 has just such a sensor, so it must be worth the effort:

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n100920.html

AFAIK this is the first implementation of offset microlenses on a CMOS sensor (the M8 & M9 are CCD) and it gives me great hope for the overall image quality of the X100. Of course we will have to wait and see what it's really like, but if the sensor performance is equal to or better than a D300 and the lens is really as good as the MTFs suggest, count me in!

Scott
Rriley said:
but there are limits to which the offset can be effective, for a RF this isnt an issue as it is mostly disposed to WA photography. Telephoto lenses OTOH are by their nature more telecentric and have a straighter shot at the sensor
Rriley said:
Film did not have the problem with off angle light.
Click to expand...
thats true
Rriley said:
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
Click to expand...
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Click to expand...
 
What makes the microlens have an f-number? If I'm reading all the information right--including the extensive technical document that Tyrone Wellhung referenced in the previous discussion of this subject ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=36025858 ), the f-number relates to the diameter of the pixel and the depth from the microlens to the photosensitive surface.

"Pixel size also determines the size of the microlens aperture. Pixel size reduction places limits on the f/# of the microlens, and this has significant consequences for the ability to concentrate the light at the sensor surface onto the photodetector buried within the pixel."

So the problem is still that the light is getting absorbed by surfaces other than the photodetector, which is fundamentally an angle of incidence problem relating to light not being able to bend around the structure of a sensor.

However, I think all of this, combined with calling it an f-number on the microlens, shows a misunderstanding of what a microlens is supposed to do. It's not to gather more light. It's to redirect light and keep it from being absorbed by surfaces on the sensor other than the light-sensitive photodetectors.

In theory, shouldn't it be possible to create a perfect aspherical microlens that redirects every photon that hits the microlens to a common point (designing for the rear objective to be a certain distance away, for a certain lens mount and therefore a certain range of angles of incidence)? Or perhaps somehow make the non-photosensitive surfaces of each pixel more reflective, as in a fiber optic cable? (I'm sure both of these solutions would be a lot harder to implement than I think, especially when we're talking about micron-scale features).

--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
scott_mcleod said:
Rriley said:
scott_mcleod said:
The M9 has the kodak sensor that specifically was designed to lesson this effect with an offset microlens structure as you move out to the edges. I wonder if other manufacturers can follow suit or if this is covered under patents.
Click to expand...
undoubtedly patented, but likely easily licensed
Click to expand...
The New Fuji X100 has just such a sensor, so it must be worth the effort:

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n100920.html

AFAIK this is the first implementation of offset microlenses on a CMOS sensor (the M8 & M9 are CCD) and it gives me great hope for the overall image quality of the X100. Of course we will have to wait and see what it's really like, but if the sensor performance is equal to or better than a D300 and the lens is really as good as the MTFs suggest, count me in!
Click to expand...
X100 is in a unique position having non interchangeable f/2 lens there is no reason to expect it will have any of these problems unless they screw it up somehow

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
come on. big girls dont cry ;)

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Rriley said:
John Mason said:
That is interesting that more wells would increase the problem. Makes sense since a bigger pixel would have more light hitting somewhere.

I still like my 2 f1.2 lenses on the Canon. Often the subject is near the center and the edges even after 'boosted' are part of the bokeh so not that much of an issue.
Click to expand...
hmmm


Rriley said:
The M9 has the kodak sensor that specifically was designed to lesson this effect with an offset microlens structure as you move out to the edges. I wonder if other manufacturers can follow suit or if this is covered under patents.
Click to expand...
undoubtedly patented, but likely easily licensed

but there are limits to which the offset can be effective, for a RF this isnt an issue as it is mostly disposed to WA photography. Telephoto lenses OTOH are by their nature more telecentric and have a straighter shot at the sensor
Click to expand...
And unfortunately, so are zooms. Oh well.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
Film did not have the problem with off angle light.
Click to expand...
thats true
Rriley said:
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
Click to expand...
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Click to expand...
 
Rriley said:
John Mason said:
I still like my 2 f1.2 lenses on the Canon. Often the subject is near the center and the edges even after 'boosted' are part of the bokeh so not that much of an issue.
Click to expand...
hmmm

Click to expand...
...the vignetting wide open is readily visible. But for the scenes you normally take pics of at f/1.2, for example:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/50, ISO 800



it's much less an issue (for me) than some make it out to be. Same for corner sharpness, of course.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
Film did not have the problem with off angle light.
Click to expand...
thats true
Click to expand...
Indeed -- film didn't need microlenses. However, it appears that sensor manufacturers are now coming to put more effort into the microlens design, so hopefully, we'll see the issue fade away in the near future, if you'll excuse the pun.
 
i always like your shots with minimal DOF as it shows how good these 'bad' lenses can be, the top right corner looks soft though :P
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo :)?
 
bobn2 said:
Steen Bay said:
bobn2 said:
Albino_BlacMan said:
Just out of curiosity, does the light that makes it to the sensor or size of the aperture determine DOF? I assume its the size of aperture that really determines this but I'm not positive.
Click to expand...
You are right. Think, if you put an ND filter on the lens, it doesn't affect DOF. Here, we're talking about the lens elements each acting as a bit of a ND filter.
Click to expand...
Yes, that sounds reasonable if we're talking about the t-stop of the lens in itself, but what if we're talking about the combined 't-stop' for the lens/sensor (or lens/microlenses)? If the microlenses are to 'slow', won't the sensor/microlens then 'see' a smaller 'effective' aperture, and won't that affect DoF? Won't the f-stop of the microlens determine how shallow the DoF can get? (just speculating, don't think it's quite clear yet, to me at least, whether DoF is affected or not by this 'pixel-vignetting')
Click to expand...
See my response here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37022920

I don't think that the microlens f-number will affect the DOF of the image projected onto the sensor, that would require that they effect some quite large deviation to the path of the light through the objective lens, and I can't imagine a physical mechanism that would cause that. The microlens f-number will affect the DOF in the image of the exit pupil projected onto the photosensitive part of the pixel, which would be a possible factor in the dimming effect as the position of the exit pupil changed, but I doubt whether its a big one.
Click to expand...
Yes, thinking a bit more about it, I think you're right about that. The 'pixel vignetting' (caused by 'slow' microlenses) can't possibly affect DoF/CoC or other related things like detail/sharpness, because all the individual pixel knows about is the amount of light/photons hitting it. It can't distinguish between a large aperture (on the real lens) with low per area intensity and a smaller aperture area with higher intensity, and it can't know/tell either whether the image projected on the sensor is in focus or not. The individual pixel is like a one-pixel sensor, basically a lightmeter just counting photons. Information about Dof, detail, etc, is only obtained when combining all the small pieces of rather limited information from individual pixels to an image, and slow microlenses can only affect the brightness of that image, not DoF, etc.
 
Was an issue of the angle at which the light hits the sensor and the point at which individual photosites fail to capture all of the light provided by the lens (i.e. anything above f4, depending on the size of the sensor, size of photosites, flange back distance and so on). Leica sticks a micro lens layer in front of its sensor and I understand this is in place to resolve a lot of the problems caused by the flange back distance from a Leica lens to a digital sensor (problems that do not exist with film).....

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile
 
Klarno said:
What makes the microlens have an f-number?
Click to expand...
Being a lens. All lenses have an f-number. It is the ratio between the focal length and the entrance pupil diameter.
Klarno said:
If I'm reading all the information right--including the extensive technical document that Tyrone Wellhung referenced in the previous discussion of this subject ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=36025858 ), the f-number relates to the diameter of the pixel and the depth from the microlens to the photosensitive surface.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the microlens is designed so its focal length is equal to the distance above the surface of the sensor.
Klarno said:
"Pixel size also determines the size of the microlens aperture. Pixel size reduction places limits on the f/# of the microlens, and this has significant consequences for the ability to concentrate the light at the sensor surface onto the photodetector buried within the pixel."

So the problem is still that the light is getting absorbed by surfaces other than the photodetector, which is fundamentally an angle of incidence problem relating to light not being able to bend around the structure of a sensor.
Click to expand...
Be careful about the angle of incidence you're talking about. The angle of incidence that's important here is the light cone angle from the pixel to the exit pupil of the lens.
Klarno said:
However, I think all of this, combined with calling it an f-number on the microlens, shows a misunderstanding of what a microlens is supposed to do. It's not to gather more light. It's to redirect light and keep it from being absorbed by surfaces on the sensor other than the light-sensitive photodetectors.

In theory, shouldn't it be possible to create a perfect aspherical microlens that redirects every photon that hits the microlens to a common point (designing for the rear objective to be a certain distance away, for a certain lens mount and therefore a certain range of angles of incidence)? Or perhaps somehow make the non-photosensitive surfaces of each pixel more reflective, as in a fiber optic cable? (I'm sure both of these solutions would be a lot harder to implement than I think, especially when we're talking about micron-scale features).
Click to expand...
P&S pixels typically have a light pipe in them, and the microlenses project on this, rather than the silicon directly, some now use back-side illumination instead, which puts the microlens the other side of a very thin silicon (or sapphire) substrate. I suspect that one of the reasons for the high quantum efficiency of Nikon sensors is that they have expertise in aspherical microlenses (for optical telecommunications, originally)

--
Bob
 
tinternaut said:
Was an issue of the angle at which the light hits the sensor and the point at which individual photosites fail to capture all of the light provided by the lens (i.e. anything above f4, depending on the size of the sensor, size of photosites, flange back distance and so on). Leica sticks a micro lens layer in front of its sensor and I understand this is in place to resolve a lot of the problems caused by the flange back distance from a Leica lens to a digital sensor (problems that do not exist with film).....
Click to expand...
This problem is to do with the microlenses. All modern sensors have microlenses, not just the ones in Leica cameras.
--
Bob
 
Rriley said:
my contention is that telecentric lenses would have relieved some of this
Click to expand...
This diagram (I hope) explains the effect.





On the left we have a sensor with a microlens, the active area of the sensor is the green bit. Up the top is the exit pupil of the lens. In this case the size of the exit pupil is such that the microlens just projects a complete image of it on the green bit of the sensor. In the middle is the situation if we make the lens faster. Now the exit pupil's projected image will not fit completely on the active area. To the right is a telecentric lens. The exit pupil is further from the sensor, but is larger to compensate (so that the lens has the same f-number). It fits exactly onto the active area as the one on the left. Telecentricity has no bearing on this effect.
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
Rriley said:
my contention is that telecentric lenses would have relieved some of this
Click to expand...
Telecentricity has no bearing on this effect.
Click to expand...
so says you

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

"When you look at the structure of CMOS sensors, each pixel as basically a tube with the sensing element at the bottom. If a light ray that is not parallel to the tube hits the photo site, chances are the light ray will not get to the bottom of the tube and will not hit the sensing element. Therefore, the light coming from that light ray will be lost. It appears from this graph that when using large aperture lenses on Canon cameras, there is a substantial amount of light loss at the sensor due to this effect. In other words, the "marginal" light rays coming in at a large angle from near the edges of the large aperture are completely lost."

" By the way, this type of light loss is the main reason that modern lenses designed for digital photography place great emphasis on the direction of light rays behind the lens. It is also an important reason why Medium Format backs (often used with camera movements such as tilt, rise/fall and shift) and the Leica M9 (with lenses that produce mostly oblique light rays) use CCD sensors with a very different structure, rather than CMOS sensors."

so much for that

other statements centred around
telecentrics that you once described as marketing fluff
microlens technology replaced the need for telecentric lenses
there is no downside to high Mp sensors

all of these are contributors to this effect

all of these lead to 'gaming the system' to recover exposure losing as much as 1 e/v of light and subsequently poorer noise performance

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Rriley said:
bobn2 said:
Rriley said:
and what a tough break for the sisters who claimed that telecentric lenses were just marketing fluff
Click to expand...
Telecentricity makes no difference to this effect, at least for sensors with offset microlenses (which is now, I suspect, all of them).
Click to expand...
microlenses were the fix for non telecentric lens suites
Click to expand...
No they weren't. They were the fix for the low fill factor of some sensor technologies.
Rriley said:
now it seems, even that isnt working for you
Click to expand...
Mainly because it's nonsense.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
As I thought would happen,
Click to expand...
thats too funny for words
Click to expand...
I said I thought it would happen, here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37014645
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
with DxO explaining it in terms of oblique incidence of light rays, those with a simplified grasp of optics get confused. The angle that matters is the angle of the light cone projected from the exit pupil of the lens. That angle depends on the f-number of the lens and is the same whether or not it's telecentric.
Click to expand...
which only highlights what i jsut said
microlenses were the fix for non telecentric lens suites
now it seems, even that isnt working for you
Click to expand...
Which was then and is now complete balderdash. Every modern sensor has microlenses. Every sensor in ever Olympus DSLR made has had microlenses. The use of microlenses has nothing to do with telecentricity, it has to do with increasing the effective fill factor of the pixel. You simply do not know a thing about this.
--
Bob
 
The M8/M9 and the X100 have in common that no tele lenses exist.
the offset microlenses is something which you can do if no tele lenses exist.

Its not good on a typical dslr where telelenses can be mounted, because offset microlenses would make telelenses darker
scott_mcleod said:
Rriley said:
scott_mcleod said:
The M9 has the kodak sensor that specifically was designed to lesson this effect with an offset microlens structure as you move out to the edges. I wonder if other manufacturers can follow suit or if this is covered under patents.
Click to expand...
undoubtedly patented, but likely easily licensed
Click to expand...
The New Fuji X100 has just such a sensor, so it must be worth the effort:

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n100920.html
Click to expand...
 
Rriley said:
bobn2 said:
Rriley said:
my contention is that telecentric lenses would have relieved some of this
Click to expand...
Telecentricity has no bearing on this effect.
Click to expand...
so says you
Click to expand...
So says I and quite a few others,.
Rriley said:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
Click to expand...
October 2010 - that's a long way behind the game. I was on this in August (before DxO, too)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&message=36025858

and the authors I quoted there, Catrysse and Wandell ( http://www.stanford.edu/~pcatryss/documents/2005_SPIE-EI_Roadmap.pdf ) were on it in 2005. I got on it because I made a bloomer in another thread, was corrected by cpw ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34107364 ), found he was right and learned .
Rriley said:
"When you look at the structure of CMOS sensors, each pixel as basically a tube with the sensing element at the bottom.
Click to expand...
No it basically isn't, unless you have a very wide definition of a tube. Here's the cross section of a Panasonic sensor pixel, as used in Olympus cameras



not very like a tube (and by the way, note the microlens on top)
Rriley said:
If a light ray that is not parallel to the tube hits the photo site, chances are the light ray will not get to the bottom of the tube and will not hit the sensing element. Therefore, the light coming from that light ray will be lost. *
Click to expand...
a very misleading way of presenting it, it could confuse people who don't understand elementary optics.
Rriley said:
It appears from this graph that when using large aperture lenses on Canon cameras, there is a substantial amount of light loss at the sensor due to this effect.* In other words, the "marginal" light rays coming in at a large angle from near the edges of the large aperture are completely lost."
Click to expand...
The marginal rays come in at the same angle from any lens of the same f-number, be it telecentric or not.
Rriley said:
" By the way, this type of light loss is the main reason that modern lenses designed for digital photography place great emphasis on the direction of light rays behind the lens.
Click to expand...
Nonsense
Rriley said:
It is also an important reason why Medium Format backs (often used with camera movements such as tilt, rise/fall and shift) and the Leica M9 (with lenses that produce mostly oblique light rays) use CCD sensors with a very different structure, rather than CMOS sensors."
Click to expand...
Also nonsense.
Rriley said:
so much for that
Click to expand...
It appears that Mr Dubovoy understands it all only a very little better than you.
Rriley said:
other statements centred around
telecentrics that you once described as marketing fluff
Click to expand...
Not me, Joe Wisniewski
http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31632124
Rriley said:
microlens technology replaced the need for telecentric lenses
Click to expand...
Offset microlens. The word offset is important.
Rriley said:
there is no downside to high Mp sensors
Click to expand...
It is an effect of small pixel sensors, which includes small sensors with the same pixel count as large pixel sensors. It can be designed around. Some manufacturers don't seem to bother.
Rriley said:
all of these are contributors to this effect

all of these lead to 'gaming the system' to recover exposure losing as much as 1 e/v of light and subsequently poorer noise performance
Click to expand...
extra gain doesn't cause more noise, it's the lower photon count that does that.

--
Bob
 
Took me a little after posting this to realise how absurdly wrong you were. In fact you were 180 degrees out, going in entirely the reverse direction, because:
telecentric lens suites were the fix for microlenses.

namely, because of the microlens effects talked bout here, with SLR systems with fast lenses, there could be corner shading with lenses with a near exit pupil. Ensuring that the exit pupil was moved further away fixed that, as did (later) offset microlenses as used by Canon and Nikon
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&message=36388607
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&message=33005380

By the way, I found this useful web page that might educate you a little on microlenses in sensors and lens design for digital cameras:
http://www.swissarmyfork.com/digital_lens_faq.htm
bobn2 said:
Rriley said:
bobn2 said:
Rriley said:
and what a tough break for the sisters who claimed that telecentric lenses were just marketing fluff
Click to expand...
Telecentricity makes no difference to this effect, at least for sensors with offset microlenses (which is now, I suspect, all of them).
Click to expand...
microlenses were the fix for non telecentric lens suites
Click to expand...
No they weren't. They were the fix for the low fill factor of some sensor technologies.
bobn2 said:
now it seems, even that isnt working for you
Click to expand...
Mainly because it's nonsense.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
As I thought would happen,
Click to expand...
thats too funny for words
Click to expand...
I said I thought it would happen, here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37014645
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
with DxO explaining it in terms of oblique incidence of light rays, those with a simplified grasp of optics get confused. The angle that matters is the angle of the light cone projected from the exit pupil of the lens. That angle depends on the f-number of the lens and is the same whether or not it's telecentric.
Click to expand...
which only highlights what i jsut said
microlenses were the fix for non telecentric lens suites
now it seems, even that isnt working for you
Click to expand...
Which was then and is now complete balderdash. Every modern sensor has microlenses. Every sensor in ever Olympus DSLR made has had microlenses. The use of microlenses has nothing to do with telecentricity, it has to do with increasing the effective fill factor of the pixel. You simply do not know a thing about this.
--
Bob
Click to expand...
--
Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top