Primes Comparison Map #2 (m4/3 vs Canon vs Nikon)

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

The poor thinking of Olympus, IMO, was imposing a long register

Click to expand...

I find the sensor diagonal to register ratio is basically no different from anything else, and certainly not an outlier.

perhaps you should post your workings on this

Is the answer compulsory, or not?
In any case, just to oblige
Mount...register...diagonal...ratio
Q.....9.2.......7.66........1.20
N1...17........15.86.......1.07
C.....17.52....14.54.......1.2
NEX..18........28.4.........0.63
mFT..19.25...21.6.........0.89
NX....25.5.....28.4.........0.90
M......27.8.....43.3........0.64
PenF..28.95...30.0........0.97
FT.....38.67...21.6........1.79
FD.....42....... 43.3.......0.97
SR.....43.5.....43.3.......1.00
EF.....44........43.3.......1.02
SA.....44........28.4.......1.55
CY.....45.5.....43.3.......1.05
K.......45.56...43.3.......1.05
M42...45.56...43.3.......1.05
OM.....46.......43.3.......1.06
F........46.5....43.3.......1.07
LR......47.......43.3.......1.09
CAF....48.......43.3.......1.11

So, 'outlier' is the right word The FT mount has a register to diagonal ratio of 1.79. The next down is Sigma SA, which is 1.55, but that's a knock-off of the EF mount with an APS-C sensor, next after that is Contax AF at 1.11, of the SLR mounts.

So, there you go.

While we are here, maybe you could let me know how far behind the mount flange a Four Thirds lens may protrude. That is something I don't know.

If you don't know, anyone else? Anyone willing to take a ruler to their lenses?

--
Bob

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

This is a slight exaggeration: a true telecentric lens has an exit pupil an infinite (mathematically, anyway) distance from the sensor. This causes the light to arrive perpendicular to the sensor. It is also costly, and creates problems, so 80-90mm "near telecentric" lenses are considered the norm./

Click to expand...

Just stop and think about the geometry of the situation. Suppose we have an f/2 lens. The rays reaching a point on the sensor from the exit pupil fill a cone from that point to the exit pupil. The angle of that cone is 28 degrees. It is the same for all f/2 lenses, and does not depend on the position of the exit pupil. Take an f/1.4 lens, the angle of the cone is 39 degrees, again, independent of the position of the exit pupil. Take an f/1.0 lens and that angle is 53 degrees. It is thin increasing angle that causes the rays at the edges of the light cone to fail to be refracted onto the photoreceptor. This is an effect that occurs even in the centre of the field, where the light cone is perpendicular to the sensor, telecentric or not.

Click to expand...

so you are saying this table by JW

is wrong

No, I'm saying it refers to a different angle. the angle referred to there is not the angle included in the apex of the light cone - which is the key angle so far as the f-number shading effect is concerned, it is the angle between the axial line and a line drawn between the centre of the exit pupil and the corner of the different sized frames, which is the line which matters so far as corner vignetting is concerned.

(see below on corner vignetting). You seem not to be differentiating between two different phenomena.

You can always do a quick 'sanity check' (if you ever do that kind of thing) - ask yourself if any of the sources you have seen fro the f-number shading suggest that it does not happen in the centre of the frame. Also, ask yourself how the angle subtended by the exit pupil at the sensor surface would change with sensor size.

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

The telecentric idea is a solution to corner shading or vignetting, which is a different problem which occurs when the whole light cone is non-perpendicular, such as in the corners (although microlenses with a reserve of 'speed' will be better with respect to corner shading than one which don't)
--
Bob

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

--
Bob

brudy · Jun 6, 2012

Well, I think it's impossible to compare the DoE (depth of evil) between Stasi and the Gestapo. You'd need to compare Angle of Hats while accounting for Coefficient of Psychopathology / the height of the average goosestep.

You can also generate a DoE scale based on the number of pockets on their uniforms.

BTW, I'm not making light of anything that happened in or after WW2 Germany. Rather, it has about as much relevance to photography as this thread does. Take pictures in whatever format you want.

schirmer said:
jeffharris said:

Dennis said:

"Equivalence Police/Nutters/Squad"

Click to expand...

AKA: DoF Gestapo

Click to expand...

Sorry, don't make the Gestapo look like an eccentric, they where really bad guys.

I would say DoF Stasi (to stay with German history): Once you said something not totally in line with The Party (here: The red book of FF) they file the issue and keep watching you and will subvert your credibility.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brudy

duartix · Jun 6, 2012

brudy said:
Well, I think it's impossible to compare the DoE (depth of evil) between Stasi and the Gestapo. You'd need to compare Angle of Hats while accounting for Coefficient of Psychopathology / the height of the average goosestep.

You can also generate a DoE scale based on the number of pockets on their uniforms.

BTW, I'm not making light of anything that happened in or after WW2 Germany. Rather, it has about as much relevance to photography as this thread does. Take pictures in whatever format you want.

Finally someone says something relevant after the OP.
Thanks!
--
Duarte Bruno

mh2000 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

All equivalence is good for is as a basis for cross format comparison

Click to expand...

Exactly!!! This is what the OP has done, nothing more. How else will you compare different systems with different formats?

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

It wont teach you how to shoot from within the confines of one format.

Click to expand...

When I shoot 135 I think in terms of FL, when I shoot m43 I think in terms of FL, but when I go to formats that I shoot rarely (645, 6x6, 6x9 or 4x5 eq. FL is useful to bring it back to what I'm comfortable with). When I talk with people unfamiliar with m43 I talk in terms of eq. FL, but with m43 users just FL again.

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

Click to expand...

Then what was the point of making this stupid comment?

Rriley said:
mh2000 said:

So for all these "anti-equivalence" clowns, you really don't care about framing or perspective when you shoot photos?

Click to expand...

since no anti-equivalence clowns have bothered to respond to you I shall proffer an answer on their behalf. On the matter of framing or perspective when I shoot photos, I can say absolutely that I care, but likely care so much I NEVER waste a moment on relating what im doing to 135 or any other format.

All equivalence is good for is as a basis for cross format comparison, or copying a method from another photographer who is using a different format. It wont teach you how to shoot from within the confines of one format.

your notion is quite clueless

Rriley said:

http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Click to expand...

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

--
http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

mh2000 · Jun 6, 2012

mh2000 said:
mh2000 said:

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

Click to expand...

Oh, I forget, you don't care about photography, just getting into stupid arguments and being rude about things you don't know.

Have fun with that!

--
http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Rriley · Jun 6, 2012

bobn2 said:
Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

The poor thinking of Olympus, IMO, was imposing a long register

Click to expand...

I find the sensor diagonal to register ratio is basically no different from anything else, and certainly not an outlier.

perhaps you should post your workings on this

Click to expand...

Is the answer compulsory, or not?
In any case, just to oblige
Mount...register...diagonal...ratio
Q.....9.2.......7.66........1.20
N1...17........15.86.......1.07
C.....17.52....14.54.......1.2
NEX..18........28.4.........0.63
mFT..19.25...21.6.........0.89
NX....25.5.....28.4.........0.90
M......27.8.....43.3........0.64
PenF..28.95...30.0........0.97
FT.....38.67...21.6........1.79
FD.....42....... 43.3.......0.97
SR.....43.5.....43.3.......1.00
EF.....44........43.3.......1.02
SA.....44........28.4.......1.55
CY.....45.5.....43.3.......1.05
K.......45.56...43.3.......1.05
M42...45.56...43.3.......1.05
OM.....46.......43.3.......1.06
F........46.5....43.3.......1.07
LR......47.......43.3.......1.09
CAF....48.......43.3.......1.11

So, 'outlier' is the right word The FT mount has a register to diagonal ratio of 1.79. The next down is Sigma SA, which is 1.55, but that's a knock-off of the EF mount with an APS-C sensor, next after that is Contax AF at 1.11, of the SLR mounts.

funny you actually mention APSC when there are only 1 diagonal of them there
most of those are defunct 135 film

bobn2 said:
So, there you go.

While we are here, maybe you could let me know how far behind the mount flange a Four Thirds lens may protrude. That is something I don't know.

If you don't know, anyone else? Anyone willing to take a ruler to their lenses?

actually they vary
and it depends what part of the lens you are interested in

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Rriley · Jun 6, 2012

bobn2 said:
Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

This is a slight exaggeration: a true telecentric lens has an exit pupil an infinite (mathematically, anyway) distance from the sensor. This causes the light to arrive perpendicular to the sensor. It is also costly, and creates problems, so 80-90mm "near telecentric" lenses are considered the norm./

Click to expand...

Just stop and think about the geometry of the situation. Suppose we have an f/2 lens. The rays reaching a point on the sensor from the exit pupil fill a cone from that point to the exit pupil. The angle of that cone is 28 degrees. It is the same for all f/2 lenses, and does not depend on the position of the exit pupil. Take an f/1.4 lens, the angle of the cone is 39 degrees, again, independent of the position of the exit pupil. Take an f/1.0 lens and that angle is 53 degrees. It is thin increasing angle that causes the rays at the edges of the light cone to fail to be refracted onto the photoreceptor. This is an effect that occurs even in the centre of the field, where the light cone is perpendicular to the sensor, telecentric or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

so you are saying this table by JW

is wrong

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying it refers to a different angle. the angle referred to there is not the angle included in the apex of the light cone - which is the key angle so far as the f-number shading effect is concerned, it is the angle between the axial line and a line drawn between the centre of the exit pupil and the corner of the different sized frames, which is the line which matters so far as corner vignetting is concerned.

(see below on corner vignetting). You seem not to be differentiating between two different phenomena.

vignetting and perpendicular light axis is highly relevant when it is the pixels that are vignetting due to 'oblique' light

bobn2 said:
You can always do a quick 'sanity check' (if you ever do that kind of thing) - ask yourself if any of the sources you have seen fro the f-number shading suggest that it does not happen in the centre of the frame. Also, ask yourself how the angle subtended by the exit pupil at the sensor surface would change with sensor size.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

The telecentric idea is a solution to corner shading or vignetting, which is a different problem which occurs when the whole light cone is non-perpendicular, such as in the corners (although microlenses with a reserve of 'speed' will be better with respect to corner shading than one which don't)
--
Bob

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Click to expand...

--
Bob

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Rriley · Jun 6, 2012

mh2000 said:
mh2000 said:

mh2000 said:

All equivalence is good for is as a basis for cross format comparison

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly!!! This is what the OP has done, nothing more. How else will you compare different systems with different formats?

i said as a basis

how about you compare actual lenses and equipment instead of pressing the theory when it looks 'convenient'. Of course if the equivalence proponents never used mFT (which is the case) thats going to be hard isnt it

mh2000 said:
mh2000 said:

mh2000 said:

It wont teach you how to shoot from within the confines of one format.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When I shoot 135 I think in terms of FL, when I shoot m43 I think in terms of FL, but when I go to formats that I shoot rarely (645, 6x6, 6x9 or 4x5 eq. FL is useful to bring it back to what I'm comfortable with). When I talk with people unfamiliar with m43 I talk in terms of eq. FL, but with m43 users just FL again.

mh2000 said:

mh2000 said:

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then what was the point of making this stupid comment?

what, you dont recall saying

So for all these "anti-equivalence" clowns, you really don't care about framing or perspective when you shoot photos?

to give is to receive...

mh2000 said:
Rriley said:

mh2000 said:

So for all these "anti-equivalence" clowns, you really don't care about framing or perspective when you shoot photos?

Click to expand...

since no anti-equivalence clowns have bothered to respond to you I shall proffer an answer on their behalf. On the matter of framing or perspective when I shoot photos, I can say absolutely that I care, but likely care so much I NEVER waste a moment on relating what im doing to 135 or any other format.

All equivalence is good for is as a basis for cross format comparison, or copying a method from another photographer who is using a different format. It wont teach you how to shoot from within the confines of one format.

your notion is quite clueless

mh2000 said:

http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Click to expand...

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Click to expand...

--
http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

The poor thinking of Olympus, IMO, was imposing a long register

Click to expand...

I find the sensor diagonal to register ratio is basically no different from anything else, and certainly not an outlier.

perhaps you should post your workings on this

Click to expand...

Is the answer compulsory, or not?
In any case, just to oblige
Mount...register...diagonal...ratio
Q.....9.2.......7.66........1.20
N1...17........15.86.......1.07
C.....17.52....14.54.......1.2
NEX..18........28.4.........0.63
mFT..19.25...21.6.........0.89
NX....25.5.....28.4.........0.90
M......27.8.....43.3........0.64
PenF..28.95...30.0........0.97
FT.....38.67...21.6........1.79
FD.....42....... 43.3.......0.97
SR.....43.5.....43.3.......1.00
EF.....44........43.3.......1.02
SA.....44........28.4.......1.55
CY.....45.5.....43.3.......1.05
K.......45.56...43.3.......1.05
M42...45.56...43.3.......1.05
OM.....46.......43.3.......1.06
F........46.5....43.3.......1.07
LR......47.......43.3.......1.09
CAF....48.......43.3.......1.11

So, 'outlier' is the right word The FT mount has a register to diagonal ratio of 1.79. The next down is Sigma SA, which is 1.55, but that's a knock-off of the EF mount with an APS-C sensor, next after that is Contax AF at 1.11, of the SLR mounts.

Click to expand...

funny you actually mention APSC when there are only 1 diagonal of them there

I have include all the 'designed for' APS-C mounts. Even if I include the FF mounts also used for APS-C, the FT mount comes in as an outlier:
EF-S.....44.......26.7.......1.65
A.........44.5.....28.4.......1.57
KD.......45.56...28.4.......1.60
F DX.....46.5....28.4.......1.64

FT is an outlier even amongst designed for FF mounts pressed into service as half frame mounts. To see what could have been done, look at the Pen FT, 0.97 ratio with a 30mm frame diagonal.

Rriley said:
most of those are defunct 135 film

Yes.

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

So, there you go.

While we are here, maybe you could let me know how far behind the mount flange a Four Thirds lens may protrude. That is something I don't know.

If you don't know, anyone else? Anyone willing to take a ruler to their lenses?

Click to expand...

actually they vary
and it depends what part of the lens you are interested in

I'm interested in the part that protrudes into the mount on the lens in which it protrudes most. Basically, what I am trying to find out is if I design a TC for Four Thirds, how much space before its front element do I need to allow.

--
Bob

Rriley · Jun 6, 2012

bobn2 said:
Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

The poor thinking of Olympus, IMO, was imposing a long register

Click to expand...

I find the sensor diagonal to register ratio is basically no different from anything else, and certainly not an outlier.

perhaps you should post your workings on this

Click to expand...

Is the answer compulsory, or not?
In any case, just to oblige
Mount...register...diagonal...ratio
Q.....9.2.......7.66........1.20
N1...17........15.86.......1.07
C.....17.52....14.54.......1.2
NEX..18........28.4.........0.63
mFT..19.25...21.6.........0.89
NX....25.5.....28.4.........0.90
M......27.8.....43.3........0.64
PenF..28.95...30.0........0.97
FT.....38.67...21.6........1.79
FD.....42....... 43.3.......0.97
SR.....43.5.....43.3.......1.00
EF.....44........43.3.......1.02
SA.....44........28.4.......1.55
CY.....45.5.....43.3.......1.05
K.......45.56...43.3.......1.05
M42...45.56...43.3.......1.05
OM.....46.......43.3.......1.06
F........46.5....43.3.......1.07
LR......47.......43.3.......1.09
CAF....48.......43.3.......1.11

So, 'outlier' is the right word The FT mount has a register to diagonal ratio of 1.79. The next down is Sigma SA, which is 1.55, but that's a knock-off of the EF mount with an APS-C sensor, next after that is Contax AF at 1.11, of the SLR mounts.

Click to expand...

funny you actually mention APSC when there are only 1 diagonal of them there

Click to expand...

I have include all the 'designed for' APS-C mounts. Even if I include the FF mounts also used for APS-C, the FT mount comes in as an outlier:
EF-S.....44.......26.7.......1.65
A.........44.5.....28.4.......1.57
KD.......45.56...28.4.......1.60
F DX.....46.5....28.4.......1.64

and SA....44.......24.87......1.77
that 0.02 means it isnt an outlier

bobn2 said:
FT is an outlier even amongst designed for FF mounts pressed into service as half frame mounts. To see what could have been done, look at the Pen FT, 0.97 ratio with a 30mm frame diagonal.

bobn2 said:

most of those are defunct 135 film

Click to expand...

Yes.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

So, there you go.

While we are here, maybe you could let me know how far behind the mount flange a Four Thirds lens may protrude. That is something I don't know.

If you don't know, anyone else? Anyone willing to take a ruler to their lenses?

Click to expand...

actually they vary
and it depends what part of the lens you are interested in

Click to expand...

I'm interested in the part that protrudes into the mount on the lens in which it protrudes most. Basically, what I am trying to find out is if I design a TC for Four Thirds, how much space before its front element do I need to allow.

that would include the rear element, where some of them move while zooming, and some of those penetrate beyond the cuff of the mount. Really you would need to look at the whole lens range.

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
vignetting and perpendicular light axis is highly relevant when it is the pixels that are vignetting due to 'oblique' light

The f-number shading effect is in play in the centre of the frame, when the main beam is perpendicular to the sensor. Of course, it will be even worse towards the edges. these are two different effects, that will both be in force together at the edges. You wouldn't expect the f-number shading to disappear at the edges?
--
Bob

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
and SA....44.......24.87......1.77
that 0.02 means it isnt an outlier

LOL, that 0.02 means you are desperate! In any case, SA mount now comes with a full size APS-C sensor.

Rriley said:
that would include the rear element, where some of them move while zooming, and some of those penetrate beyond the cuff of the mount. Really you would need to look at the whole lens range.

exactly, that is why I'm asking people who have access to these lenses, preferably all of the range, with the rear element as far back as it goes. I would expect, it being a 'standard' that the figure will be defined in the 'standard' somewhere.
--
Bob

mh2000 · Jun 6, 2012

First of all, I did not attack you personally! You jumped in!

You insulting my work without even looking at it is far different from me making a statement about people in general who argue that framing and perspective are less important than total light striking a sesnor when it comes to crafting a photograph.

What "theory" am I pushing??? All I say that first and foremost I consider FL based on perspective and framing. If I am shooting soemting in a new format I will think in terms of someting I am familiar with. When I'd pick up my S95, I really didn't know what the crop factor was, but I knew that the widest FL was eq. to 28mm on 135, that was easy and uselful. If I knew I needed something wider I would borrow my gf's LX-5. I guess I could have worried about other stuff, but I knew how the senors performed and didn't worry about the area of sensor etc. I wasn't trying for minimal DoF so I just stop down to maximize IQ and DoF, so again, I wasn't worried about what the DoF on any other sesnor would produce. I didn't have other formats with me so worrying about what the noise characterists of my friend's 5D would be didn't mean a thing to the photos I was shooting.

Rriley said:
mh2000 said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

All equivalence is good for is as a basis for cross format comparison

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly!!! This is what the OP has done, nothing more. How else will you compare different systems with different formats?

Click to expand...

i said as a basis

how about you compare actual lenses and equipment instead of pressing the theory when it looks 'convenient'. Of course if the equivalence proponents never used mFT (which is the case) thats going to be hard isnt it

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

It wont teach you how to shoot from within the confines of one format.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When I shoot 135 I think in terms of FL, when I shoot m43 I think in terms of FL, but when I go to formats that I shoot rarely (645, 6x6, 6x9 or 4x5 eq. FL is useful to bring it back to what I'm comfortable with). When I talk with people unfamiliar with m43 I talk in terms of eq. FL, but with m43 users just FL again.

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then what was the point of making this stupid comment?

Click to expand...

what, you dont recall saying

So for all these "anti-equivalence" clowns, you really don't care about framing or perspective when you shoot photos?

to give is to receive...

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

mh2000 said:

So for all these "anti-equivalence" clowns, you really don't care about framing or perspective when you shoot photos?

Click to expand...

since no anti-equivalence clowns have bothered to respond to you I shall proffer an answer on their behalf. On the matter of framing or perspective when I shoot photos, I can say absolutely that I care, but likely care so much I NEVER waste a moment on relating what im doing to 135 or any other format.

All equivalence is good for is as a basis for cross format comparison, or copying a method from another photographer who is using a different format. It wont teach you how to shoot from within the confines of one format.

your notion is quite clueless

Rriley said:

http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Click to expand...

i believe it, but Im not going there to check

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Click to expand...

--
http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

--
http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Big Ga · Jun 6, 2012

zuikodude said:
Notes:

Only original manufacturers (No tamron/sigma/voitlander etc…)

Only AF lenses

Only includes ranges 20mm-200mm

Some Canon/Nikon lenses are older and were not designed for digital (but they have revised many)

No Tilt/Shift lenses

I really think that for a fair comparison (if one was considering buying into a 'system') would actually include all those that you have chosen to omit.

So while I did think your table was interesting ... what exactly was the point of it again??

Rriley · Jun 6, 2012

bobn2 said:
Rriley said:

vignetting and perpendicular light axis is highly relevant when it is the pixels that are vignetting due to 'oblique' light

Click to expand...

The f-number shading effect is in play in the centre of the frame, when the main beam is perpendicular to the sensor. Of course, it will be even worse towards the edges. these are two different effects, that will both be in force together at the edges. You wouldn't expect the f-number shading to disappear at the edges?

they actually do not say which pixels though

then ask yourself under what conditions does vignetting take place

with thinner pixel lightpipe designs on substrates that I imagine are just as deep in depth, creating an unfavourable width vs depth aspect ratio that is bound to be subject to pixel vignetting until BSI move into play, where the substrate needs to be thinner anyway

thats how I looked at the problem in its totality from the start

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

Rriley · Jun 6, 2012

bobn2 said:
Rriley said:

and SA....44.......24.87......1.77
that 0.02 means it isnt an outlier

Click to expand...

LOL, that 0.02 means you are desperate! In any case, SA mount now comes with a full size APS-C sensor.

not at all
the data was taken some time ago

JW used to say the same thing with more flowery language, something in the order of outrageously large register. Where in reality the differences are quite insignificant

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

that would include the rear element, where some of them move while zooming, and some of those penetrate beyond the cuff of the mount. Really you would need to look at the whole lens range.

Click to expand...

exactly, that is why I'm asking people who have access to these lenses, preferably all of the range, with the rear element as far back as it goes. I would expect, it being a 'standard' that the figure will be defined in the 'standard' somewhere.

they have quite a lot of room to play with in that mirrorbox,
..........some other applications might not go as well

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

vignetting and perpendicular light axis is highly relevant when it is the pixels that are vignetting due to 'oblique' light

Click to expand...

The f-number shading effect is in play in the centre of the frame, when the main beam is perpendicular to the sensor. Of course, it will be even worse towards the edges. these are two different effects, that will both be in force together at the edges. You wouldn't expect the f-number shading to disappear at the edges?

Click to expand...

they actually do not say which pixels though

But they don't say the edge, do they. How would Canon and Nikon make their ISO adjustment work just at the edges? This effect covers the whole frame. I know that because I know how it works. I did the reading, I did the maths.

Rriley said:
then ask yourself under what conditions does vignetting take place

Edge vignetting? At the edges?

Rriley said:
with thinner pixel lightpipe designs on substrates that I imagine are just as deep in depth, creating an unfavourable width vs depth aspect ratio that is bound to be subject to pixel vignetting until BSI move into play, where the substrate needs to be thinner anyway

If the pixel is built with a proper light pipe, that is an optically designed pipe which guides the light to the photoreceptor, then it is the distance from the end of the pipe to the microlens that is the critical distance for the FL and thus speed of the microlens.
If you want to read up on this stuff, this Aptina white paper is quite nice
http://www.aptina.com/news/FSI-BSI-WhitePaper.pdf
See figure 1 to see about light pipes. As it says

Adding the lightguide effectively shortens optical stack height; meaning that the point where light converges is raised from the silicon surface to the top of the lightguide as shown in the center diagram of Figure 1.

Rriley said:
thats how I looked at the problem in its totality from the start

Fact remains, this f-number shading effect has nothing to do with telecentricity.

--
Bob

bobn2 · Jun 6, 2012

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

Rriley said:

and SA....44.......24.87......1.77
that 0.02 means it isnt an outlier

Click to expand...

LOL, that 0.02 means you are desperate! In any case, SA mount now comes with a full size APS-C sensor.

Click to expand...

not at all
the data was taken some time ago

JW used to say the same thing with more flowery language, something in the order of outrageously large register. Where in reality the differences are quite insignificant

Well really they are not insignificant. Your argument that they are not is based on the Sigma, a hacked up copy of the Canon FF design, used with the old 1.7x sensor, and that that is just about as bad as the FT. The mounts designed for their format are about 1, the register is the same as the diagonal, give or take a little FT is 1.79. That is not an insignificant difference, and it has cost the FT format dearly in size and weight. If they had chosen a ratio of 1, 24mm or so, they could have built real DSLR's as compact as mFT. In fact, there would never have been a need for the second go of mFT - the same mount could have accommodated DSLR and pocketable mirrorless.

--
Bob

mh2000 · Jun 6, 2012

The inability of seeing the box of equivalence as a non-rigid conceptual way of relating unlike things can be more useful than trying to only stick to rigid concepts. Things are rougly relative in different ways... and if you stict to the mistaken quest of finding a precise unified theory of lens equivalence you are really just wasting your time... all just hot air.

boggis the cat wrote:
...

boggis the cat said:
It appears that thinking of everything in "equivalent photograph" terms causes an inability to think outside that little (and never used in practice) conceptual box.

--
http://emptyspacesproject.wordpress.com/

Primes Comparison Map #2 (m4/3 vs Canon vs Nikon)

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts